Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (Charing Cross Bridge) Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Rotherham Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 13) Bill [Lords],

Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bradford Extension) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. ALBERY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the National Union of Railwaymen have made any representations to the present Government concerning the ratification of the Washington Hours Convention?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a question by the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), on 5th December, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour when the Bill to enable this country to ratify the Washington Hours Convention will be introduced into this House?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on this subject on 23rd January, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Lady give us an assurance that this Bill will be in the hands of Members of this House a sufficient time before its discussion, say a fortnight, in order that it may be adequately considered?

Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly.

Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Lady realise that the greater part of Europe is being held up by the inaction of the Government on this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY EMPLOYES (MOTHERS).

Mr. FREEMAN: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of married women with children working in factories at the present time?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. FREEMAN: May I ask whether it is possible for these statistics to be collected with a view to considering whether married women with children cannot be relieved of the double responsibility of earning wages and looking after their families?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will see whether they can be obtained.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask the right hon. Lady to take care that she does not impose any further burden on the country by the collection of these statistics?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT.

Mr. TINKER: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the average weekly amount of unemployment benefit paid to 1,000,000 unemployed persons and their dependants?

Miss BONDFIELD: The average weekly amount of unemployment benefit paid to 1,000,000 unemployed persons claiming benefit and their dependants was during the year 1929 about £790,000.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that, while no unemployment benefit is payable in respect of authorised holidays, signatures given on or for these days count for linking up in order to qualify a man for unemployment benefit if he is unemployed for two other days in any six working days, that signatures given retrospectively are only allowed when the Employment Exchange has been closed upon that authorised holiday, and that therefore when the Exchanges are open men are required to attend at the Exchanges in order to sign upon that holiday, she will issue instructions to the Exchanges authorising them to allow men to sign retrospectively in respect of authorised holidays in cases where such a signature will be of benefit to them even when the Exchanges were open on the said authorised holiday?

Miss BONDFIELD: Claimants who are suspended from work or are working short time, and have not been definitely discharged from their employment, can count days of recognised customary holidays for continuity purposes only if they prove unemployment for such days in the normal way. I do not think it is reasonable to ask that signature of the register should be excused on days when the Exchanges and branch employment offices are open for the purpose of signature. Provision is, of course, made for excuse of signature oh good cause being shown.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to ask the right hon. Lady whether she does not consider it is right that the unemployed should receive pay for holidays just as well as Members of Parliament

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Does not the Minister of Labour realise that there is no difficulty about this? If they can sign back on some days in the year, there is no reason why they should not be able to sign back on others. In Nottingham it will only amount to four or five days—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Miss BONDFIELD: This matter is settled by Statute.

WORKING HOURS.

Mr. TINKER: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour what reduction of hours of work
of those who are at present employed in insurable occupation would be required to absorb another 1,000,000 persons and keep up the standard of output?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that the varying conditions in different industries and the many other circumstances to be taken into account render it impracticable for me to give an estimate of the kind desired.

Mr. TINKER: May I ask the right hon. Lady to consider whether she can get these figures, because this is the only way in which we can consider the problem of rationalisation in connection with the solution of unemployment.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN- DOYLE: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour the position of the negotiations with certain trades unions respecting the proposed Bill for the alteration of the hours of employment; and whether the objections of the railway unions have yet been met?

Miss BONDFIELD: The further discussions to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member's last question on this subject have not yet taken place, and I am not, therefore, in a position to add to that reply.

EXCHANGE FACILITIES, GRANGETOWN.

Mr. MANSFIELD: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour what action she proposes to take respecting the re-opening of the Employment Exchange at Grangetown?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have this matter under consideration and hope to write to my hon. Friend in the course of the next few days dealing fully with the position.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Can the Minister of Labour say if she is going to open many more employment centres?

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (STAFFS).

Mr. GREENE: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the numbers of those employed on the staffs of Employment Exchanges have been augmented since 10th June, 1929, in order to deal with the increased volume of unemployment; and, if so, to what extent?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of persons employed on the staffs of the Employment Exchanges necessarily varies with the amount of unemployment. It in-
creased from 9,678 on the 10th June, 1929, to 10,540 on 20th January, 1930.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Would it not be right to say that this is the only form of employment which the Government have found for anybody? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

Miss BONDFIELD: The answer is in the negative.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: May I ask—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am surprised at the right hon. Lady giving a reply, as the question is quite irrelevant.

Mr. McSHANE: May I ask whether managers of Employment Exchanges are satisfied with the present establishments, or whether they have made any representations for an increase in staff?

Miss BONDFIELD: The question of staffs at Employment Exchanges has been under careful review, and consultations are taking place with regard to the necessity for a readjustment where under-staffing is proved.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is not the necessity for increasing the staff at Employment Exchanges necessitated by the action of the Government in not finding work for the unemployed?

JUVENILE TRAINING CENTRES (GRANT).

Mr. KINLEY: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour how many local education authorities are affected by the reduced grant for training centres, juvenile unemployment; and what amount will be thrown upon the local education rates in consequence?

Miss BONDFIELD: In general there has been no reduction in the rate of grant, which has been maintained at 75 per cent. of approved expenditure. In accordance, however, with the proposals recommended by the National Advisory Councils for juvenile employment a grant on the 100 per cent. basis is no longer admissible except in certain very limited classes of cases. Seven authorities are affected. One of them has decided to close its centres, but the others have not so far done so and I trust will not do so. I cannot say what the effect on the rates will be, as this depends on
various uncertain factors. The total reduction in grant, assuming all the centres to continue, would be on the basis of last year's working, under £2,000 per annum.

Mr. KINLEY: In view of the fact that the Minister of Labour can ascertain the amount that is going to be thrown on local or national funds by the development of these training centres, will she not endeavour to obtain the figures for which I ask?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will certainly make an effort to obtain them.

Mr. W. THORNE: If a local authority proves that it is a necessitous area, is that fact taken into consideration?

Miss BONDFIELD: Special consideration is given to a distressed area.

Mr. HARRIS: If an education authority is identified with this work, is it not rather necessary that some contribution should be made, however small?

STATISTICS.

Major NATHAN: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour the average weekly number of persons registered as unemployed at the Employment Exchanges in Great Britain for each of the years between 1921 and 1929, both inclusive?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following table shows the average weekly number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain.

Year.



Average Numbers on Registers.


1921
…
…
…
1,825,015*


1922
…
…
…
1,552,606


1923
…
…
…
1,289,575


1924
…
…
…
1,130,979


1925
…
…
…
1,239,637


1926
…
…
…
1,401,891*


1927
…
…
…
1,111,771


1928
…
…
…
1,231,109


1929
…
…
…
1,230,164


* The figures are affected by the dispute in the coal mining industry but are exclusive of persons disqualified for benefit by reason of the dispute.

MUSICIANS.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour if she has any figures showing the number of musicians who are at present unemployed consequent upon the introduction of talking pictures?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) on 19th December last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. SMITHERS: In view of the unemployment in the musical profession, will the right hon. Lady do what she can to see that the introduction of foreign musicians into this country is limited as far as possible?

Miss BONDFIELD: I can assure the hon. Member and the House that that is so already. I am in constant communication on this matter, and, in fact, I have already arranged, at the request of the Variety Artists' Federation, for a deputation to be received.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the right hon. Lady also consider the abolition of foreign music as well in this country?

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour how many bands composed of alien musicians have been permitted to enter this country since the present Government came into office; and what were the corresponding numbers in the previous three years?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am having this information extracted and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

JUVENILES.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to make special provision at Employment Exchanges for dealing with the juveniles who will come under the unemployment insurance scheme for the first time in the event of the Unemployment Insurance Bill becoming law; and, if so, whether she can state the nature of the proposed arrangements?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Clause in the Unemployment Insurance Bill to which the hon. Member refers will not come into operation until 1st April, 1931, at the earliest. Adequate arrangements will be made in due course to deal with the additional work involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS AND FIBROSIS).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any and, if so, which of the recommendations of the departmental committee on the diagnosis of silicosis are to be adopted; and when it is anticipated that the central bureau will be set up?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): I have approved generally the medical arrangements recommended by this committee, but I am advised that they cannot be given effect to without further legislation, and a Bill is accordingly in preparation. I have already acted on the recommendation of the committee in favour of further research by arranging with the Medical Research Council for the appointment of an expert committee.

Mr. MORLEY: 25.
asked the Home Secretary what further steps have been taken towards scheduling fibrosis of the lungs under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Mr. CLYNES: This is a big question, on which I was advised that much further research would be necessary, and I therefore asked the Medical Research Council to set up an expert committee to institute and co-ordinate research into the subject. I am glad to say that the Council have agreed to do this and are now engaged in setting up a committee. I understand that the committee is practically complete and will be appointed very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON, MANCHESTER (LIGHTING).

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recommendation contained in the last three reports of the visiting justices to His Majesty's prison at Manchester for the substitution of electric light in place of gas; and is he prepared to take any action in the matter?

Mr. McELWEE: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the complaints made by prisoners in His Majesty's prison, Manchester, regarding the inadequacy of the lighting in the prison; whether he has seen the reports
of the visiting committee and the justices thereon; and whether he proposes to have inquiries made into this important matter?

Mr. CLYNES: Manchester is one of a number of prisons at which the substitution of electricity for gas would be desirable. At various prisons progress has been made of recent years with the process of substitution so far as funds have permitted, but I have now under consideration the preparation of a more comprehensive scheme, and in the preparation of this scheme the position of Manchester Prison will receive attention.

Mr. THORNE: Will this mean dispensing with the services of gas workers?

Mr. CLYNES: So far the increasing use of electricity has been accompanied by an increase of employment of gas-workers.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR FATALITIES (MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES).

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can furnish statistics for each of the last five years as to the number of prosecutions in England and Wales for manslaughter arising out of deaths alleged to be due to criminal negligence on the part of the drivers of motor vehicles, and as to the number of cases in which convictions followed these prosecutions?

Mr. CLYNES: I am unable to furnish the information desired. The calendars of proceedings at Courts of Trial do not distinguish manslaughter cases according to the manner in which death was alleged to have been caused.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHIEF CONSTABLES (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in cases where he is asked to approve the appointment of candidates without civil police experience to the position of chief constable, it is his practice to satisfy himself that among those who apply for the position there is no candidate sufficiently well qualified among the police to fill the vacancy?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. Under the Regulations there are two grounds on which the selection of an outside candidate can be justified, either the special qualifications of the candidate chosen or the lack of suitable candidates with police experience. The selections submitted to me have all been supported on the former ground.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what his general policy is going to be? Is it his policy to give the police a chance of promotion, or is it to bring in outside men for the highest?

Mr. CLYNES: Certainly, the police are given every chance of promotion. The local authorities make selections, and it is my duty to see that the men chosen satisfy the requirements of the position named in the question.

Mr. HANNON: Should it not be the policy to get the best possible men regardless of police experience or otherwise?

Mr. CLYNES: That is the policy.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present course drives away men of higher education who otherwise would be attracted to the police force?

Oral Answers to Questions — JURY SERVICE (SEAMEN).

Sir JOHN GANZONI: 27.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Captain Thurston was recently obliged, when his vessel was at Yarmouth, to attend upon a jury at the quarter sessions being held at Ipswich, thereby incurring considerable expense; whether he can cause this expenditure to be refunded to Captain Thurston; and whether he will take steps to prevent seafaring men being put to similar expense when their vessels are away from their home port?

Mr. CLYNES: The Juries Acts do not exempt merchant seamen from jury service. It was open to Captain Thurston to have asked for his attendance to have been excused. There is no fund from which his expenditure can be refunded.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME OFFICE INDUSTRIAL MUSEUM.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Industrial Museum of the Home Office is open to the public; if so, between what hours and upon what conditions; and what has been the number of visitors in the last six months?

Mr. CLYNES: The Museum is open to the public each week-day from 10 to 1 and from 2 to 4, admission free. Arrangements are also made for special visits by parties at other times on application to the Chief Inspector of Factories at the Home Office. The number of visitors in the last six months of 1929 was 2,530.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN TOURISTS.

Mr. MATTERS: 29.
asked the Home Secretary if, with a view to making conditions more attractive to foreign tourists and ensuring a greater measure of success for the work of the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland, he will favourably consider proposals for the relaxation of regulations and procedure associated with registration of such tourists at police stations?

Mr. CLYNES: The majority of tourists are already exempt from registration. The provisions of Article 6 (5) of the Aliens Order do not require an alien to register until he has been two months in the United Kingdom. I have great sympathy with the objects mentioned in the first part of the question, but I have no information which suggests that for this purpose the Aliens Order needsmodification. I shall, of course, be ready to consider any proposals which the hon. Member may wish to lay before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUCK ACT (WOLVERHAMPTON).

Mr. MANDER: 32.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of complaints of evasion of the Truck Act in the Wolverhampton area; and if he will give instructions to his inspectors to see that the attention of employers is called to the provision of the Truck Act by which no money shall be deducted from wages or payment made by workmen for or in respect of any fine unless the terms are continued in a written contract signed
by the workmen or else contained in a notice always kept in some place where it may be easily seen, read, and copied?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. I have no knowledge of any such complaints. It appears from the report of the Factory Inspector in charge of the district that neither of the two cases of infringement mentioned in my reply to the previous question by the hon. Member related to deductions or payments in respect of fines and that apart from these cases no infringements or complaints have come to the inspector's notice. If the hon. Member cares to furnish me with the information on which his question is based, I shall be glad to consider whether further inquiry is necessary.

Mr. MANDER: May I bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman certain facts which would suggest that action should be taken?

Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether the morals of Wolverhampton have gone down since the hon. Gentleman who put the question came to the House?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 33 and 35.
asked the President of the Board of Education (1), if the means test for parents whose children are affected by the compulsory raising of the school age will be on the same lines as the present means test for old age pensions;
(2), if the maintenance grants for school children up to the limit of 5s. weekly will be the same in urban and rural districts?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I will answer these two questions together by referring the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 23rd January.

Dr. DAVIES: I am not asking the same question in No. 35 as in No. 33. In No. 35 I ask whether the maintenance grants for school children will be the same in urban and rural districts.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am afraid that the answer is the same, that I cannot say anything until I have had advice.

Mr. COVE: Will the regulations be national in scope and application, or will they vary at all in the localities?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I cannot say anything until I have had the report.

Dr. DAVIES: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he proposes to take powers to compel such local education authorities as refuse to do so voluntarily to contribute their quota of 40 per cent. towards maintenance grants for school children?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The Bill which I have introduced provides that it shall be the duty of local education authorities to take the necessary action in this matter, and the Board's grants to an authority are, of course, conditional on the authority performing its statutory duties.

Dr. DAVIES: Do we understand that local education authorities, which have passed resolutions objecting to the compulsory raising of the school age, will be forced to pay their quota of 40 per cent. whether they like it or not?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: They will have to do whatever Parliament decrees.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities consider that the Government grant is totally inadequate?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I know that there are a good many local authorities that would like to have it higher.

Mr. COVE: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the special difficulties of the distressed areas?

SECONDARY SCHOOL, ESTON.

Mr. MANSFIELD: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has received the Report from the North Riding Education Committee respecting the provision of a secondary school for the Eston Urban District; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on the 5th December last. The authority's programme for the next three years has not yet been received, but I expect that it will be submitted shortly.

CADET CORPS.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of grant-aided secondary schools that have established cadet corps in connection with the schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The number is 87.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is the number increasing or decreasing?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I cannot say. My hon. Friend had better ask the Secretary of State for War.

DEFECTIVE NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.

Mr. KINLEY: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of voluntary schools which are listed as defective or no longer suitable; and the number of children in average attendance at those schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The total number of voluntary schools remaining on the black list is 1,323. The total number of children on the registers of these schools on the 31st March last was 318,892.

Mr. KINLEY: Will the Minister say whether the circumstances in which these children are attending school daily do not call for immediate action on the part of the Government who are responsible?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Pressure is constantly being put on in order to improve the situation.

Mr. KEDWARD: Is the Minister aware that in one of these schools there has been a grave outbreak of disease only a fortnight ago, involving the death of one or more children; and will he make inquiries?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I should be glad if the hon. Member will give me details.

Mr. BEAUMONT: In how many of these schools, or in what proportion, is provision being made for dealing with defects.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I could not say without notice.

TEACHERS.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is his estimate of the total number of additional men teachers required in view of the raising of the school-leaving age on 1st April, 1931?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: As I have previously explained, the additional number of teachers required (both men and women) will depend on so many factors
that I must wait until the programmes of local education authorities for 1930–33 have been examined before giving an estimate.

Captain HUDSON: How can the right hon. Gentleman estimate that there are not enough being trained, if he does not know how many will be required?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: This is an estimate, not a certainty.

Captain HUDSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any estimate?

HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."

Mr. T. LEWIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman experiencing any difficulty from training-schools, with regard to additional new entrants?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, Sir.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the total number of additional men selected to take a post graduate course to qualify as teachers by midsummer, 1931?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am not yet in a position to give this information, as it will be some time before the Training Colleges and Departments complete their selection of candidates to be admitted next autumn.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that it would take some time, can he now state how long, and also what is the cause of the delay?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: There is no delay in this particular matter.

STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. FREEMAN: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is satisfied with the results of the pro vision of State scholarships; and whether he will consider enlarging the number awarded each year?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The system of State scholarships at Universities for pupils from State-aided secondary schools was introduced in 1920 and, after a short suspension, was reintroduced in 1925. We have thus had nearly 10 years' experience of the working of the system, and I have no hesitation in saying that it has fully
justified itself. There are 200 State scholarships awarded annually. Only 11 per cent. of the scholars have failed to obtain either a first or second class honours degree. The subsequent careers of scholars who have already finished their course have, I have ascertained, been generally very satisfactory. Since 1920 the number of entrants for the scholarship examinations has increased from 1,090 to 3,919 in 1929. I have made inquiries from the examining bodies who award the State scholarship, and I am assured that the number of candidates at their examinations who reach the standard for a scholarship is considerably greater than the number of scholarships available. I accordingly propose to increase the number of scholarships available for award each year by 50 per cent., making the number 300 instead of 200. This increase will come into effect this summer.

Mr. FREEMAN: Could not the conditions under which these -scholarships are awarded also be improved?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I should be glad of any suggestion with regard to details in connection with that matter. There may be some improvements possible.

Mr. HANNON: Can the Minister indicate to the House what will be the cost of this scheme?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a question, I will give him the information.

Mr. T. LEWIS: Will the Minister consider the desirability of allowing these scholarships to be taken at any college or University, or University college?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I will consider that question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the country can afford these bursaries?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Certainly, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfied.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL.

Mr. HARRIS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Education (School Attendance) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am unable to give any undertaking in the present condition of business as to a date for the Second Reading of the School Attendance Bill; but, as has already been stated, the Government intend to secure its passage into law before the end of the year.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the Prime Minister aware that unfortunately some local authorities, including, I understand, London, are refusing to make the necessary provision for the extra year in the school age, either by the training of the necessary teachers or the provision of the necessary buildings until the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament—in other words, until they are compelled?

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House in round figures what will be the cost to the State?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is quite obviously a question that should be addressed to the Department.

Mr. SMITHERS: We have tried that.

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend must persevere. With reference to the other question, that again ought to be addressed to the Department. My responsibility is for providing time for the Bill.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very considerable doubt in the country, possibly regrettable doubt, as to whether the term of the present Government will be long enough to permit of the introduction of that Bill?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state the decision of the Government with regard to the taking over of property in connection with slum clearance?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I must ask the hon. Member to await the proposals for legislation which I hope will shortly be laid before the House.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these proposals will be laid before the House, as last July we were told that the matter was under active consideration?

Mr. KEDWARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House in the meantime if housing schemes in connection with slum clearance are being held up owing to the Derby judgment; and has he given any instructions in that matter to local authorities?

Mr. GREENWOOD: In reply to the last question, certain schemes are now being held up because of the decision of the Courts. I hope this matter will be dealt with by legislation subsequently. With regard to the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), I can give no date, but I welcome his enthusiasm with regard to a long neglected question.

SCHEMES (JUDICIAL DECISIONS).

Major NATHAN: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take any steps by way of declaratory legislation or otherwise to obviate the holding up of the approval and carrying out of housing schemes by reason of the judicial decisions in the so-called Derby and Liverpool cases?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would ask the hon. Member to await the proposals for legislation which I hope shortly to submit to Parliament.

Major NATHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give an approximate date by which that legislation will be effective?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is a question that might properly be put to the Prime Minister.

Major NATHAN: Then may I repeat it to the Prime Minister?

RURAL AREAS.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 50.
asked the Minister of Health what steps, if any, are taken by the Ministry where rural authorities fail to provide cottages in rural areas?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The need for the adequate discharge of their duties under the existing Housing Acts is impressed upon any local authority if I have any
good reason to think that they do not recognise it. The whole question of rural housing is under consideration in connection with the new proposals which I hope shortly to lay before the House.

Mr. TAYLOR: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that some rural authorities are very much asleep in regard to providing the necessary cottages in many villages?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That may be true; I should be glad to investigate any cases which my hon. Friend might put before me.

Mr. KEDWARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some rural district councils which have not built a single house and have declined to do so, although representations have been made to them from time to time?

Captain EDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman in consultation with any local authorities as to the new proposals?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the local authorities to a form of rural cottage called the Nash house?

Viscount LYMINGTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he proposes to take steps to push local authorities which are backward in the working of the Rural Housing Act?

TIED COTTAGES.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 51.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the question of removing the injustices of the present tied-cottage system by introducing a short Bill to place service tenants on the ordinary basis of the Rent Restriction Act?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This matter will be considered in connection with any legislation amending the Rent Restriction Acts, but it will not be practicable to introduce further legislation for this purpose in the immediate future.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering this question of houses dependent on jobs, will he also consider the matter of No. 10, Downing Street?

RENTS, CROYDON (POOR LAW RECIPIENTS).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 56.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that tenants of council houses in Croydon, which are let at rents too high for the average working man, are receiving poor relief and using part of it to pay their rents; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am informed that a small proportion of the tenants of the local authority are temporarily in receipt of Poor Law relief The amount of the rents to be fixed for the houses is a question for the council, and I do not think that the matter is one in which I can take any action.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is an extremely good way of giving relief according to need where required?

DIRECT LABOUR.

Mr. WELLOCK: 57.
asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities at present erecting houses by direct labour, and the total number of houses involved in these schemes; also similar figures for January, 1928, and January, 1925?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The number of local authorities in England and Wales who were erecting houses by direct labour at the 1st January, 1930, was 47, and the number of houses which they had already erected or were erecting by direct labour at that date was 21,164. The figures for 1st January, 1928, were 46 local authorities and 7,528 houses. Similar figures for the 1st January, 1925, are not available.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures, or can he give us any idea as regards the relative cost of the houses erected by direct labour?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member had better put down a question on that point.

PARLOUR HOUSES (SUBSIDY).

Mr. SIMON: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the importance of concentrating all housing efforts in the removal from the slums of the poorer families who cannot afford the rent of
parlour houses, he will consider abolishing the subsidy under the 1924 Housing Act as regards parlour houses?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am anxious that great efforts should be made to provide better accommodation which will be available for poor families living in bad conditions, but I do not consider that the activities can or should at present be limited to this aspect of the housing question. There is a need for the building of more houses by local authorities apart from the question of dealing with slums. And while I think that the greatest need is for houses of smaller type, I do not consider that local authorities should be debarred from building parlour houses, or that subsidy should not be available for such houses in proper cases.

Mr. SIMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are very many cases of small families with incomes round about £8 a week living in these parlour houses, and that the very poorest families in the slums have to contribute through the rates to the subsidy on these houses, and will he take some steps to end this serious injustice and waste of public money?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the hon. Member had better await the Bill.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the question that the abolishing of the subsidy would reduce the cost of the houses?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Not necessarily.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it good to raise the general standard of houses throughout the country, and is not the parlour house, therefore, on the whole a good thing?

EDGWARE TOWN PLANNING (CEMETERY SITE).

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the order he has made sanctioning the purchase by the Hampstead Borough Council of land at Edgware as a site for a cemetery overrides the Edgware town-planning scheme; whether the Edgware District Council have protested against the proposal and have suggested an alternative
site; and whether he will suspend the order pending the holding of a local inquiry at which the district council and the residents can be heard?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No town-planning scheme has been over-ridden. An appeal was made to me, as was permissible under the town-planning provisions, against the refusal of the local council to allow the proposed cemetery. After carefully considering the case, including possible alternative sites, I came to the conclusion that I could not uphold the local council. I cannot now reopen the case. I may add that a local inquiry has already been held in the case, in connection with an application of the Hampstead Council for sanction to a loan.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Firstly, may I ask whether it was not a fact that the inquiry was a general inquiry and not one covering the over-riding of the Housing Order; and, secondly, will not the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot hold a formal inquiry, receive a deputation from this council?

Mr. GREENWOOD: On the first point, of course the inquiry was rather wider than the particular point in question at the moment. On the second point, I would be very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman, but the question of a formal deputation is another matter.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: May I not bring with me those who are intimately acquainted with this matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am prepared to consider that, and I will give my right hon. Friend a definite reply.

FAIR RENT COURTS.

Mr. McSHANE: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether, under the forthcoming Housing and Slum Clearance Bill, he will consider the setting up of fair rent courts?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The setting up of fair rent courts would be an incident of rent restriction rather than of housing or slum clearance, and I have already indicated there is no possibility of introducing legislation for the amendment of the Rent Restriction Acts in the near future.

BELPBR RURAL DISTRICT.

Mr. LEES: 80.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been built by the Belper Rural District Council; and in which parishes have they been built?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Belper Rural District Council have built 55 houses, which are situated in the parishes of Denby, Duffield, Horsley, and Horsley Woodhouse.

Mr. LEES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any appeals by parish or rural district councils for more houses?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Personally, I have not heard of any, but I will make inquiries.

Mr. LEES: Has not the Holbrook Parish Council written protesting against the decision of the rural district council?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no personal knowledge of that, but I will inquire into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he can now give any information regarding the reconstitution of the Governing Body of the Seamen's Pension Fund and as to the proposed representation on that body of fishermen's interests?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Scheme for the constitution of the Governing Body of the Seamen's. Special Fund has now been made and I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The various bodies empowered by the Scheme to do so, have been asked to submit nominations for membership of the Governing Body and up to the present, nominations have been received in respect of the members to represent classes of persons entitled to benefits out of the Fund, including a member to represent fishermen, but no nominations have yet been received in respect of the members to represent shipowners. Until all the nominations have been received, it is not possible to proceed with the formal appointment of the new Governing Body.

Sir R. HAMILTON: How many representatives of the fishing interest are to be included? Is that representation limited to one?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The representative of the fishermen will be one, and I may say that he is Mr. Walter Wood, the representative of the Scottish Fishermen's Approved Society.

INQUIRY.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether arrangements are being made for the sub-committee of the Civil Research Committee, which is inquiring into the fishing industry, visiting fishing ports and taking evidence from people of knowledge and experience in the industry?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that the sub-committee are making arrangements to obtain evidence from people of knowledge and experience in the fishing industry, and that where, in their view, it is desirable they propose to arrange for two or more of their number to visit particular ports. One such visit has already been made by the Chairman to Yarmouth.

Major NATHAN: Is the sub-committee in question now to become a sub-committee of the Economic Advisory Council, and, if so, will the membership remain the same?

The PRIME MINISTER: This sub-committee will obviously finish its work and the new committee about to be appointed will he appointed under the new regime.

Major WOOD: Will definite invitations be given to special societies, or are they expected to volunteer evidence?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. and gallant Member puts down a question, I shall be very glad to answer it, but obviously I cannot do so without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

BLIND WELFARE.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 49.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received any representations with regard to the proposed grants to voluntary associations for the blind under the Local Government Act, 1929; whether he is aware of the
difficulties in which voluntary associations will be placed if the balance of the grants due for the year 1929–30 are not paid; and if he will reconsider this part of the draft scheme?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have received representations from various associations and have explained to them that they will receive a year's Exchequer grant from my Department during the present year, and that by the provisions of the scheme to be made under Section 102 of the Local Government Act they will receive a full year's contribution from the local authorities during next year, and so on. The continuity of the payments is thus preserved and the interests of the associations are safeguarded.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will that carry out the pledges of the Labour party with regard to the blind?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That does not arise out of this question.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that under the draft scheme issued by him in connection with the Local Government Act, 1929, the grants payable by local authorities to voluntary associations for the welfare of the blind are based on the number of persons on their register on the 31st March, 1927; that the number on their registers on 31st. March, 1928, was higher; and whether, in view of the resultant diminution in income to these associations on this basis, he will consider the desirability of amending the draft scheme in this matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The basis of calculation referred to in the question has been adopted only in the case of the contributions payable to Counties Associations for the Blind, and these contributions form only a small part of the total contributions included in the draft scheme. As regards these contributions, the number of blind persons on the registers on the 31st March, 1927, was adopted as the basis of calculation because that was the basis on which Exchequer grants were made to these associations in respect of the standard year. As regards the last part of the question, I shall be prepared from time to time after consultation with the local authorities concerned to recon-
sider the amounts of the contributions specified in the scheme if due cause is shown.

Mr. TILLETT: 78.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that certain workshops of the blind are introducing piece-work rates of wages; and whether, having regard to the fact that the speeding up of work in this way imposes great nerve and physical strain upon blind persons, this change in policy has his approval?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This method of remuneration is adopted in practically all the workshops for the blind in England and Wales, and I think it should be given a fair trial in those in which it has recently been introduced.

Mr. TILLETT: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is able to state the number of local authorities that submitted schemes for the exercise of their powers under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, Section 2, within 12 months of the passing of the Act; the number of local authorities that submitted such schemes at subsequent dates; the number of such authorities that are providing or maintaining workshops, hostels, homes, or other places for the reception or training of blind persons; and the number of such authorities that are contributing towards the provision and maintenance of workshops, hostels, homes, or other places for the training and reception of blind persons?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Particulars as to the actual dates of submission of these schemes are not readily available, but the majority of the local authorities submitted their schemes within 12 months of the passing of the Act and practically all of them within two years. Four-local authorities have themselves provided, and are now maintaining, workshops, hostels or homes for the reception of blind persons, and 17 have contributed towards the provision of such workshops. The large majority of local authorities contribute towards the maintenance of workshops, hostels or homes which have been provided by voluntary bodies. Any question as to the training of blind persons should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education.

MEAT EXTRACTS (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. FREEMAN: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to an advertisement appearing in many newspapers, and particularly on Saturday, 28th December, 1929, in an evening paper, implying that the Health Ministry recommends certain meat extracts; whether this recommendation was given; and, if not, what action he proposes to take in the matter to dissociate the Ministry from such advertisements?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My Department does not recommend this or any other meat extract. But the advertisement does not appear to contain any misstatement of fact with regard to the Ministry of Health, and while I deprecate such a form of advertisement, I do not think that I can usefully take any action in the matter.

Mr. FREEMAN: Might I assume that the Ministry of Health has never made any such recommendation, and that any such advertisement is entirely misleading, inaccurate, and unjustified?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If there is any suggestion, explicit or implicit, that the Department has given any such recommendation, it is quite unfounded.

PUBLIC ABATTOIRS.

Mr. T. LEWIS: 60.
asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities that have established public abattoirs?

Mr. GREENWOOD: According to the information in the possession of my Department, the number of local authorities in England and Wales who have established public abattoirs is about 100.

Mr. KEDWARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to make it compulsory for local authorities to establish abattoirs?

PSITTACOSIS, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. HANNON: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a recent statement by the medical officer of health for Birmingham that several cases of psittacosis, definitely caused by infection from parrots, has occurred in Birmingham within the past two years; and, seeing that of 11 cases
reported in Birmingham during the period stated four have proved fatal, he will say what steps the Ministry has taken to deal with this malady?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am informed that the medical officer of health of Birmingham has not made any public statement of the kind referred to. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 23rd instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden).

Mr. HANNON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information from Birmingham of the result of the inquiry which he has ordered to be made, and can he give any information as to what practical steps are being taken to put an end to this malady?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As I explained to the House, investigations are not complete.

Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that both Germany and the United States of America have prohibited—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is giving information.

BIRTH CONTROL.

Mr. MORLEY: 64.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have desired him to give consideration to the question of allowing municipalities to provide facilities for reliable and private information as to the methods of family limitation?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Fifty-five.

Mr. MORLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House if and when he is prepared to grant these facilities?

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. EDE: 77.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the fact that a local authority water undertaker may supply water in bulk to another local authority undertaker but not to a company undertaker; and if, with a view to securing the best use of the available water supplies, he will introduce legislation to remove the anomaly?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My attention has been drawn to this matter, and I propose to deal with it when a favourable opportunity occurs.

Mr. EDE: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman thinks that will be?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid I cannot answer that question at this moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING RELIEF (BRIXHAM HARBOUR).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 54.
asked the Minister of Health if he is yet in a position to state how much the Brixham harbour authorities benefit under the De-rating Act of 1928?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. I could not undertake to supply particulars as to the rate relief enjoyed by individual occupiers of rateable hereditaments.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as this is a matter which comes very close to the Government and to his Department —

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

HARTON HOSPITAL, SOUTH SHIELDS (PATIENT'S DEATH).

Mr. EDE: 58.
asked the Minister of Health if he has caused an independent investigation to be made into the circumstances surrounding the recent death of a patient in the Harton hospital of the South Shields Board of Guardians; if the officer investigating on his behalf had at at his disposal a full transcript of the shorthand notes made at the guardians' inquiry; how many of the witnesses at the guardians' inquiry have left the service of the guardians since giving evidence; if the matter has been before the Board since he first received a complaint; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have not yet received a report from the guardians dealing with this matter, and until this report has been received I cannot say whether it will be necessary for me to order an independent investigation. In the event of an inquiry being ordered the full transcript of the shorthand notes made at the
guardians' inquiry can be available for the person holding the inquiry. Two of the witnesses have left the service of the guardians since giving evidence. The matter has not been before the board of guardians since I first received the complaint, as the Board referred the question to the Hospital Committee, who have appointed a Special Committee from their members to inquire and report. This report should come before the Hospital Committee, who will report to the House Committee, which comprises all the members of the board of guardians, to-day, and I hope to receive it without waiting for its formal presentation to the Board.

TEST WORK, PRINCE ROCK PLYMOUTH.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether the conditions which prevail at Prince Rock, Plymouth, have now been investigated by the inquiry set up into test work; and whether it is proposed to abolish the system of stone breaking and stone shifting altogether?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I propose to consider this matter in connection with the results of the special inquiry into test work.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these unemployed men have, in many oases, to walk about six miles a day before they are placed on this task, and can he hold out any hope that the whole system will be revised and put on a more humane footing?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member must really await the result of my inquiries.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when this report is to be issued?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I never promised a report; I promised an investigation, and the report will be made to me.

Viscountess ASTOR: This was used against us during the Election—[Interruption.]

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to publish the report?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member must be patient, for I must see it first.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot promise to publish the report, will he make it available to Members of the House?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that the substance of it will be published in the annual report of the Department for the year.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why there is so much delay about this inquiry; it is a very simple inquiry which could be conducted most expeditiously? Is it proceeding like an ordinary inquiry of the Ministry of Health or on purely official lines?

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether the standing joint committee of industrial women's organisations and other bodies have recently requested the Government to give further relief to the necessitous areas; and what action he has taken in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The committee referred to has made representations to me on the need for taking steps to mitigate distress in the depressed areas during this winter. Apart from other measures, such as the acceleration of public works which are being assisted by the Government, I have addressed a circular to guardians drawing their special attention to the importance of securing that relief shall be adequate in amount and carefully adapted to the needs of each case. I shall be glad to send the right hon. Gentleman a copy.

Sir K. WOOD: Was not the right hon. Gentleman requested to give some special grant to these necessitous areas, inasmuch as he had himself so long advocated these grants; and what reply did he give?

Mr. THORNE: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he knows what the right hon. Gentleman opposite did when he was in office?

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question: What special assistance is he going to give
to necessitous areas; he is simply relying on the extra assistance that has been given by the Local Government Act?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should be so disturbed about the ill-effects of the legislation which he helped to pass.

ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL, HALIFAX.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: 69.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the condition of the operating theatre at St. Luke's Poor Law Hospital, Halifax; and, if so, will he agree to the immediate reconstruction of the theatre, together with its being fitted up with modern appliances.

Mr. GREENWOOD: My attention has been called to the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. As I have already explained to him, I am unable in present circumstances to approve the scheme in the form submitted by the guardians, but I shall be ready to give consideration to such proposals as may be agreed by the guardians and their successors.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is urgently necessary that this theatre should be reconstructed; and, seeing that it will be required in future, will he not see the advisability of compelling them to do this work, leaving financial adjustment for a later period?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not a matter of financial adjustment, but of the form of the scheme, and, if the guardians and the local authority which will take over on 1st April agree, I am sure that there will be no difficulty about approving it.

HOLLESLEY BAY COLONY.

Mr. HARRIS: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement as to the future of Hollesley Bay Colony; in whom it will be vested; and for what purpose it will be used after April next?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is proposed that the Hollesley Bay Farm Colony shall be transferred to and vested in the London County Council. I am not aware that the use to which the colony will be put has yet been determined.

BELMONT COLONY.

Mr. HARRIS: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has had any recent Report on the living and working conditions at Belmont Colony; whether he is satisfied that they are satisfactory; and whether Poor Law unions in London are continuing to send persons there for training?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The institution is frequently inspected by my officers who keep me in touch with the developments and satisfactory progress is being made. London Poor Law unions are continuing to send persons to the institution for training.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some Poor Law unions alleged, some months ago, that there were some cruel conditions there, and is it now to his satisfaction?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that satisfactory progress is now being made, and boards of guardians are still continuing to send persons for treatment there.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMUTEES (PRESS REPRESENTATIVES).

Mr. EDE: 72.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that certain county and county borough councils have announced that they do not intend to admit the Press to meetings of public assistance committees or of the guardians' subcommittees; that under the Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act, 1908, the Press had a statutory right to attend meetings of boards of guardians, whose work will be taken over by the public assistance committees and the guardians' sub-committees; whether he will make representations to the county and county borough councils that the Press should be admitted to such meetings after 1st April, 1930; and, if it should appear that the right of the Press to attend such meetings is doubtful, whether he will promote legislation to extend the Act of 1908, which already covers education committees, to cover public assistance committees and guardians' sub-committees?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the second part in the affirmative. The duties of boards of guardians are, however, in fact transferred not to
the committees mentioned, but to the councils of counties and county boroughs. In regard to the meetings of these bodies, the Press have the same rights as they have in regard to meetings of boards of guardians. In regard to meetings of the committees, there is power, but not obligation, to admit the Press. The matter has been left by Parliament to local discretion, and I do not think it wise to interfere with that discretion.

Mr. EDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to investigate the analogy between these committees and education committees, which were successors of the old school boards, with a view to securing that public knowledge of the work of the Poor Law shall be at least as wide as it has been hitherto?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will consider that, but I hope that it will be.

RELIEF (REPAYMENT).

Mr. KINLEY: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, on 21st instant, applicants in the West Derby Union for outdoor relief were called upon to sign a declaration that any relief granted would be repaid by the recipient; that relief was refused to those who, being destitute of means, declined to sign; and whether this action was taken upon his instructions?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first, second and third parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. As regards the last part, the question whether in any case relief should be given by way of loan is one for the decision of the guardians.

Mr. KINLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter was discussed at the last meeting of the West Derby Board of Guardians, that it has been discussed in the local Press and that a great deal of indignation has been aroused; also, that the guardians themselves, at their meeting, declared that they had taken this action on the instructions of the Minister of Health. Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into it and let me know the result?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Will the Minister of Health consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of this action?

Viscountess ASTOR: Could we know whether the board of guardians are Socialists or Conservatives?

Mr. McSHANE: 76.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to a recommendation of the Staffordshire Public Assistance Committee that all out-relief granted should be by way of loan and subject to each recipient signing an agreement to repay within 12 months, and to his authorising his employer to make this repayment by deductions from his wages; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative: as to the last part, under the regulations in force, the matter is one for the decision of the guardians or their successors.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. TINKER: 61.
asked the Minister of Health if he is in a position to state the number of persons over the age of 65 who are in receipt of pensions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?

Mr. GREENWOOD: On 31st December, 1929, the total number of old age pensions payable in England and Wales under or by virtue of the Contributory Pensions Act of 1925 to persons over the age of 65 was as follows:

Old age pensions to persons 65 to 70 years of age
511,461


Old age pensions to persons over 70 years of age
363,600


Total
875,061

Any inquiry regarding pensions payable in Scotland should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORPORATION AND GENERAL SECURITIES LIMITED.

Sir K. WOOD: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any communications with reference to the four local authorities affected by the failure of the Corporation and General Securities, Limited; whether he has been in communication with such authorities on the
matter; and whether any question has risen as to the personal liability of members and officials of any of the corporations affected?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have received communications with regard to two of the authorities referred to, and have been in communication with the four. The question of personal liability has been raised, but is a legal matter on which it would not be right for me to express an opinion at the present time.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the approximate amount of the loss sustained by municipal authorities, and has he received any communication from any of them as to whether it will be necessary to bring in a Parliamentary Bill?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot say what the aggregate was. The largest case was Wakefield, where the sum involved was £324,000, and I believe that a Private Bill is before the House.

Mr. LEACH: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what the Wakefield Corporation pay their treasurer?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUDIT (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) ACT.

Sir K. WOOD: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to bring proposals before Parliament to repeal the Audit (Local Authorities) Act, 1927?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot undertake at the present time to introduce legislation on this subject in view of the pressure of Parliamentary business.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the boroughs in London with Socialist majorities are demanding this, and is he not going to take any notice of their request? Does he not know that they want to get back to Poplarism as quickly as possible?

Oral Answers to Questions — INSTITUTIONS (ENGLISH MEAT).

Mr. ALBERY: 79.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the experiment made by the county mental hospital in Rutlandshire, with over 2,000 patients, which resulted in a saving of £180 for the year by using
English beef instead of Argentine meat; and whether he will recommend the general adoption of this practice?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There is no county mental hospital in Rutlandshire. If the hon. Member will give me further particulars of the case he has in mind, I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what procedure he intends to adopt in order that the House may be kept informed of the progress of the Naval Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House will readily understand that it is neither in accordance with precedent nor in the national interest that questions on the business of a Conference like this should be put during the progress of the Conference—on its day-to-day work. That would make the task of the British delegation impossible. I am sure that is not what is meant by the right hon. Gentleman's question. There may, however, be points in the progress of the work of the Conference when a statement might properly be made to the House, and, if the Leaders of either of the other parties would consult me whenever they think that information is required, I should be glad to discuss with them the advisability of a question. On the other hand, if I should think that the House ought to be informed of anything which has happened I shall arrange for a question through the usual channels.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be for next week; and perhaps he will be good enough to tell us at the same time what business he contemplates taking if the Motion in his name which is on the Paper is carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: If I may take the second question first, the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clook
Rule is to apply only to the first two Orders on the Paper, the Coal Mines [Money] (No. 2) Resolution, and the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill—Consideration of Lords Amendments. I would remind the House, however, that the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill is exempt from the operation of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, and we would like to get that too, but the Eleven o'Clock Rule will be used for no other purpose.
With reference to the first question, the business for next week will be:
Monday: Consolidated. Fund (No. 2) Bill, further stages; the Second Reading of the Mental Treatment Bill [Lords]; and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. The Report stage of the Money Resolution for the Coal Mines Bill will also be taken on this day. I understand there is agreement about that.
On Tuesday and Thursday, the Coal Mines Bill will be in Committee.
On any day, if time permits, other Orders may be taken.

Sir K. WOOD: With reference to the business on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman may observe that there is an Order before the Mental Treatment Bill, which is a very important. Bill, and will need, I think, some considerable time for its discussion. I take it the right hon. Gentleman will not press for the Second Reading stage of that Bill to be completed if the business on the first Order takes some considerable time?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will have to consider that and see whether it will be necessary to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many mental defects sit in the House of Lords?

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 124.

Division No. 122.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mort, D. L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harbison, T. J.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Harbord, A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hardie, George D.
Muff, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Harris, Percy A.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Ammon, Charles George
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Murnin, Hugh


Angell, Norman.
Haycock, A. W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Arnott, John
Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hayes, John Henry
Noel Baker, P. J.


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oldfield, J. R.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Barnes, Alfred John
Herriotts, J.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palin, John Henry.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palmer, E. T.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hoffman, P. C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Perry, S. F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Horrabin, J. F.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Benson, G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bowen, J. W.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Pole, Major D. G.


Bromfield, William
Isaacs, George
Potts, John S.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brothers, M.
Johnston, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Raynes, W. R.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burgess, F. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashfield)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O (W. Bromwich)


Caine, Derwent Hail-
Kelly, W. T.
Romeril, H. G.


Cameron, A. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cape, Thomas
Kinley, J.
Rothschild, J. de


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kirkwood, D.
Rowson, Guy


Charleton, H. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S, Molton)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Chater, Daniel
Lang, Gordon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Clarke, J. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cluse, W. S.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sandham, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Sawyer, G. F.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrence, Susan
Scott, James


Compton, Joseph
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Scrymgeour, E.


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Scurr, John


Cowan, D. M.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sexton, James


Daggar, George
Leach, W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dallas, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dawes, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lees, J.
Sherwood, G. H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shield, George William


Devlin, Joseph
Lindley, Fred W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dickson, T.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shillaker, J. F.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Logan, David Gilbert
Shinwell, E.


Dukes, C.
Langbottom, A. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Duncan, Charles
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Ede, James Chuter
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lowth, Thomas
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lunn, William
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Egan, W. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Foot, Isaac
McElwee, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Freeman, peter
McKinlay, A.
Snell, Harry


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sorensen, R.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McShane, John James
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stephen, Campbell


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mansfield, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gill, T. H.
March, S.
Strachey, E. J St. Loe


Glassey, A. E.
Marcus, M.
Strauss, G. R.


Gossling, A. G.
Markham, S. F.
Sullivan, J.


Gould, F.
Mathers, George
Sutton, J. E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maxton, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gray, Milner
Melville, Sir James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Millar, J. D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Milner, J.
Tillett, Ben


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Groves, Thomas E.
Morley, Ralph
Toole, Joseph


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Tout, W. J.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Townend, A. E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hall Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Turner, B.




Vaughan, D. J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Viant, S. P.
West, F. R
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Walker, J.
Westwood, Joseph
Wise, E. F.


Wallace, H. W.
White, H. G
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Wallhead, Richard C.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Watkins, F. C.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, T.(York, Don Valley)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Albery, Irving James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Astor, Viscountess
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Atkinson, C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Balniel, Lord.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beaumont, M. W.
Hanbury, C.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Berry, Sir George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Skelton, A. N.


Boyce, H. L.
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bracken, B.
Heneage, Lieut., Colonel Arthur P.
Smithers, Waldron


Briscoe, Richard George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Thomson, Sir F.


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Knox, Sir Alfred
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Train, J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Long, Major Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lymington, Viscount
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Everard, W. Lindsay
Muirhead, A. J.



Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ferguson, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir George Penny.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
O'Neill, Sir H.



Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Amendments to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sheppey Water) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Blasphemy Laws (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Atkinson, Sir John Birchall, Mr. Ede, Mr. Foot, Mr. Haycock, Countess of Iveagh, Mr. Kedward, Sir Alfred
Law, Mr. Logan, Mr. Marley, Sir Herbert Nield, Sir Charles Oman, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Lord Eustace Percy, Sir James Reynolds, Mr. Short, Mr. Snell, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Thurtle, and Mr. Watkins.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill): Lord Balniel, Mr. Cameron, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. MacLaren, Mr. Hugh Morrison, Mr. Philip Oliver, Major Graham Pole, Mr. W. B. Taylor, and Mr. Charles Williams.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

COAL MINES [MONEY] (No. 2).

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") to provide for regulating and facilitating the production, supply, and sale of coal by owners of coal mines, for the temporary amendment of Section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, for the constitution and functions of a Coal Mines National Industrial Board, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament:—

(i) of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in paying—

(a) such remuneration (if any) to the chairmen of the committees of investigation constituted by the said Act, such travelling and subsistence allowances to the chairmen and members of those committees, such remuneration to the secretaries to those committees and such remuneration to accountants, officers, and servants employed by those committees, and such other expenses of those committees, as the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine;
(b) such remuneration (if any) to the chairman of the Coal Mines National Industrial Board to be constituted under the said Act, such travelling and subsistence allowances to the chairman and members of that Board, such remuneration to the secretary of that Board, and such other expenses of that Board as the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine;
(c) such remuneration to the members of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission constituted by the said Act, and to the secretary, officers, and servants of that Commission, and such other expenses of that Commission as the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine;
(d) such remuneration as the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine to such technical and professional agents as may he employed by the said Commission for the discharge of the functions of the Commission under the said Act, so, however, that a sum equal to the amount of any expenses incurred by the employment of such agents as aforesaid for the purpose of promoting or assisting the amalgamation of any undertakings consisting of or comprising coal mines shall, in the event of the undertakings being amalgamated, be repaid to the Board of Trade by the owners of the amalgamated undertaking; and

1218
(ii) of such other expenses as may be required to be defrayed for the purposes of the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. William Graham.]

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. I want to ask your Ruling, Mr. Young, with regard to an important sentence in this Money Resolution. The Resolution contains these words:
for the temporary amendment of Section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908.
The 1908 Act was the original Act which provided for eight hours underground and half an hour winding-time, or eight and a-half hours. I submit that this has nothing whatever to do with money. The Government are taking power here to amend Section 3 of that Act. Section 3 gave to an owner, agent or manager power on 60 days in one year to increase the time by one hour, making eight and a-half hours into nine and a-half hours. I submit that the object of the Government can be only to increase the 60 days or to increase the hours, and that this sentence ought not to be in the Money Resolution, as it has nothing whatever to do with money. The Government make no provision either in the Bill or in the Amendments on the Paper for an increase in miners' hours, and I, therefore, ask your Ruling as to whether this sentence ought to be in this Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: I have no power to alter or delete words in the Resolution. A Money Resolution is for specific purpose or purposes, and the Government are entitled to make the Resolution fully cover the objects of the Bill.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): This Resolution carries out the undertaking which I gave to the House two days ago, and, I understand, will now be passed without discussion.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having tabled afresh Resolution in this form. I think that the words of paragraph (ii)—
of such other expenses as may be required to be defrayed for the purposes of the said Act,
are as wide as any Financial Resolution can possibly be, and we shall now be in order in discussing any Amendment that
may be moved within the scope and Title of the Bill. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the action he has taken, and I think the fact that he has tabled a Resolution in this form shows how important it was that we drew attention to the matter.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has very fairly and honourably carried out his undertaking.

Mr. TINKER: Will the President of the Board of Trade clear up the point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey)? There may be nothing in it, but if our fears are well founded, then I am with him in fighting this particular point in the Money Resolution.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The short reply is that the preliminary part of this Resolution is merely descriptive of the Title of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now-considered."

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask whether, as is somewhat customary on these occasions, either the Minister in charge of the Bill or whoever is leading on the Government Bench will give the House any general idea of what course it is proposed to pursue with regard to the Amendments?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I take it that the order will be to take the Amendments seriatim.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(Rates of benefit.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, leave out lines 11 to 18.

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 26, after the word "include," insert
the performance of work for payment which is less in amount than the increase in the weekly rate of benefit or.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the House that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Major ELLIOT: It would be to the advantage of the House if we bad a few words of information from the Minister on this point. We are pleased to find the Government in this reasonable mood, and we are all thoroughly in agreement that the House should agree with the Lords in this Amendment. It raises, of course, a question of principle, but I understand that the Government waive the question of Privilege, and, of course, by reason of your words, Mr. Speaker, record will be made in the Journals of the House, so that the position of this House will be in no way prejudiced by the decision to which it has come. The Amendment, of course, was moved in another place by one of the Noble Lords there, and it is a fact that it increases the number of persons who can claim benefit. It allows a wife who is performing certain work which brings in remuneration less than the increased benefit, 9s. per week, still to qualify for a portion of the benefit, although she is in fact earning a little money. The instance given in another place was that of a woman who performed a trifling service, say, in providing a few cups of tea, or anything like that. It might be ruled that she was doing that for profit and was earning a certain amount of money, and might be disqualified from receiving benefit. I do think that in all these Amendments, even where the Minister is recommending that this House doth agree with the Lords, a few words of explanation are not out of place. I have done my best to explain the Government's Amendment to the Govern-
ment's supporters, and I think it would be well if we had a few words from the Minister also.

Mr. MUFF: We are satisfied with your explanation.

Major ELLIOT: I hope hon. Members opposite will be equally satisfied with the explanations of hon. and right hon. Members on this side when we support the proposal that this House doth agree with the Lords in other Amendments which are brought forward, when we can point to the valuable precedent which the Government themselves have created on this Bill in accepting a Lords Amendment, although that Amendment raises a question of Privilege, and point out that this question of Privilege is fully safeguarded by the entry in the Journals of the House that this House has waived its privilege on this occasion.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I thought that the right hon. Lady was going to rise to speak, but, apparently, she is not yet quite convinced, or some of her supporters may not be convinced, as to whether we should agree with the Lords in this Amendment. In that case I feel that it is incumbent upon us on this side or upon me at any rate, to emphasise the fact that this Amendment is what I might describe as an Amendment rather of a kind-hearted nature, and not an Amendment which closes up the avenues. If I understand it rightly—I may not understand it rightly—it is meant to help a few people who may get an occasional job. Of course, this is very important. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer shaking his head at me, and I am not sure whether he is not taking the line that I am encouraging him in needless extravagance. Of course, if he feels that we must disagree with the Lords in this Amendment, I am perfectly willing at any rate to listen with due humility to his observations on this matter; but I should like to join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) in congratulating the Government on the fact that this very bad Bill, thanks to this Amendment, is made a little bit better. I support the Amendment, though I am not quite sure whether we might not have done it ourselves in the House of Commons at the
proper time, if only we had a, little more time to discuss these vital questions.

Miss BONOFIELD: The matter was so fresh in my mind that perhaps I assumed, unwisely, that it would be equally fresh in the minds of others. This is what is generally known as the "cup of tea" point. It was thoroughly discussed in the House during the general discussion that took place, and an Amendment with regard to it was on the Paper, but was withdrawn owing to a misunderstanding, it being thought that it was covered by another Amendment. The Government subsequently agreed to accept a manuscript Amendment to remedy that mistake, but the manuscript Amendment was not called. It was, therefore, inserted in another place. I feel sure that the House agrees with the principle, and I hope the Amendment will be agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to ask the right hon. Lady whether the question of possible hardship in the rural areas is properly covered by this Amendment. The question of there not being an actual cash transaction was dealt with in another place. Many people in the rural areas are in and out of work, sometimes in agriculture and sometimes in the building trades, because men in the building trades are sometimes out of work owing to weather conditions. There is no cash transaction there, and I should like to know whether steps will be taken to see that the local authorities who deal with this matter deal with it in a sympathetic manner. In such cases, when married men with families are out of work, they are sometimes penniless except that the wife keeps poultry or pigs. I do not ask the right hon. Lady to give a definite answer now, but I shall be glad if the matter can he attended to, and I hope very much that she will see that the local authorities pay special attention to those people to whom I have referred.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Does not the Minister's explanation show that this omission was entirely due to the fault of the Government in forcing the Bill through its Committee stage in this House by the use of their mechanical majority, backed up by the mechanical majority of the Liberal party?

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House with reference to this Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 28, at the end, insert:
Provided that the requirement in paragraph (b) of this Sub-section as to the employment of the female person previously to the insured person becoming unemployed shall not apply in any case where the necessity for employing such a female person did not arise until after the date on which the insured person became unemployed.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is simply a matter that could not be provided for in its proper place.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, leave out Clause 4, and insert

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit.)

"If, on a claim for benefit, it be proved that the claimant has refused, and refuses, without reason, to work when employment is found for him, or if it be proved that the claimant is not endeavouring to obtain employment, he shall be disqualified from receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be."

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the House that this Amendment also raises a question of privilege.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask, before making any remarks on this Amendment, whether neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary has anything more to say with regard to this matter? [Interruption.] If not, I would ask the House to mark the attitude of the Government, after all the protestations that they have made. In the first place, as to the question of Privilege,
which they waived so readily on the Amendment to which the House has just agreed. The whole question of Privilege is designed in order to protect the taxpayer from additional charges being laid upon him, and yet the Government have waived it at once and gladly when the effect is to increase the charge upon the taxpayer. But, when there is a technical breach of privilege because the charge is to be varied by being reduced and not increased, then at once they claim the right to insist upon privilege, and their impatience of any change becomes marked. It is an extremely strange inversion of the real duty of the House of Commons, which is to protect the taxpayer instead of laying additional burdens upon him. It is the more remarkable when we consider the way in which the Government have appealed to the House on former occasions. We have been appealed to by the Lord Privy Seal, and the nation has been appealed to in public, not to treat the question of unemployment as a controversial question, but to discuss it freely, everyone contributing what they can towards its solution. The Minister of Labour, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said:
Unemployment insurance is not a matter of party politics, and I hope that in the many hours we shall spend on this Bill all parties in the House will remember that its object is to preserve the self-respect of the worker."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1929; col. 752, Vol. 232.]
When however an Amendment, the object of which is really to make a, contribution, is brought before this House for consideration as to whether people, not only in this House but also in the country, will think it a decided improvement on the Clause in the Bill which was sent to another place, not only are hon. Members opposite prepared to insist upon their rights with regard to the matter of principle, but, so much do they treat it as a party matter, that we have not one single word of explanation on the Motion to disagree with the Lords on the Clause the draft of which is before us. A draft which every trade unionist realises is in harmony with the best practice and principles of trade unionism as practised by themselves. I would move that, either this House accept the Clause and waive the question of Privilege, or, if there is any technical objection to this Clause
because of its wording, that the House is willing to amend it or to substitute something for it; but at any rate that the principle which is embodied in this Clause, the principle that there must be authority to call for effort to find work, on the part of claimants, is one to which this House assents as much as the other House which has sent this Clause down to us.
May I bring to the remembrance of hon. Members, though it is so fresh that, perhaps, it is hardly necessary, what has actually happened in the history of this Clause? It is very pertinent to our deliberations this afternoon. When the Minister introduced this Bill on Second Reading, she laid down two main principles to which she wished to give expression in this Bill. The first was that the onus of proof in matters of qualification for benefit should be placed upon the Exchange and not upon the claimant. The second principle, to which the right hon. Lady attached equal importance, was that there must be authority for the State to call for effort to find work on the part of claimants. Again and again the right hon. Lady emphasised that principle. Further on in her speech on the Second Beading, at the very beginning of the history of this Bill in Parliament, she stated that this Clause was the most vital clause of the Bill. As regards the first principle, that the onus of proof should be placed on the Exchanges, she was ready to consider drafting Amendments—in other words, that she adhered to the principle that at any rate a man must make an effort to find work. Drafting Amendments she would consider. And then she used, I think for the first time, the phrase which has now become historic, if not notorious, that, with regard to drafting Amendments only, she would be willing to gather the collective wisdom of the House. This principle, however, that the claimant should make an effort to find work was reaffirmed without any qualification by the right hon. Lady. Everything she said supports my claim that this House should assent to the principle, however they may amend the wording.
When it came to the Committee stage the same thing happened under
different conditions. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), introduced an Amendment because he was not satisfied that the early part of the original draft really placed the onus of proof upon the Exchange. But again on the Committee stage there was no question about the second principle, that the need to make a positive effort on behalf of the claimant was one which the Government had a right to claim. It was repeated by the Minister at that stage with great emphasis. She gave a warning in her capacity, not only as Minister but as a trade unionist of 35 years' standing, that some effort had to be made by the person who was asking benefit.
The Attorney-General, when he came to support her, was even more forcible. He said that this principle was a cardinal matter of national policy. It was a sound principle, and what is more, while impressing the necessity for it, he asked the Committee to give their minds to it and not to be led away by sentiment. He pointed out that if they departed from sound principles it would be to the detriment of the public interest. In fact this particular principle was really the Ark of the Covenant on which no one should lay sacrilegious or emotional hands. The House will agree that if there was one thing on which the main supporters of the Bill laid stress, it was this. The Attorney-General took occasion also to point out that this insistence on their part was not merely a passing opinion. The Government had had months in which to prepare the Bill, and therefore, clearly, the opinion was one to which they themselves attached the greatest importance. After this there came the great change, and the Attorney-General introduced the new Clause which was in the text of the Bill as it went to the other House, from which this principle, which they had thought so vital, had been omitted. Why? [An HON. MEMBER: "The book of the words again!"] According to the book of the words, which is sometimes very useful, the Attorney-General had again gathered the collective wisdom of the House.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is the sixth time you have said that already.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: And that is about a tenth part of the number of times the Minister used that phrase. I have mentioned it for this reason. They gave it as their excuse and the hon. Member now has supplied what that wonderful phrase really meant. It did not mean gathering wisdom. It merely meant sitting on the fence until they could see which way the cat was going to jump, but on that occasion they mistook a playful gesture of the animal for its real intention and tumbled off.
They introduced this Clause because of what was afterwards realised to be a mere demonstration and not a real attack. That is the origin of the Clause as it went to another place. Now we have it back again with this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman himself said we gathered the wisdom of the other House. That is what the Minister appealed for. She wanted to get opinions from all sources. Her own wish was that this should not be treated as a matter of party politics. She wished to have a discussion on its merits, irrespective of what persons or bodies the different opinions came from. If there was any reality in that appeal she would be as glad to consider it as an Amendment coming from another place as from some of the more vocal Members on her own side.
We are told in the running obligate of interjections that is going on that this is a disgraceful proceeding on the part of the House of Lords. But the Minister of course, has gathered not only the wisdom of that place but the wisdom of the trade unions as well. In one trade union after another as shown by the White Paper—and this must have been known to many hon. Members opposite—precisely this same principle is embodied which the Government had itself stated was vital and which now they have completely abandoned. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which unions?"] If the hon. Member will get the White Paper he will find that there are 26 unions. This Clause is modelled almost precisely on a provision in the Rules of the National Union of Railwaymen.

Mr. J. WILSON: I noticed a statement in the other House which is entirely foreign to the facts relating to the National Union of Railwaymen. The rule was never of their own volition, nor does
it apply to any of the benefits of the National Union of Railwaymen. For a short period they agreed to administer the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and during that period they were obliged, at the instance of the Ministry, to adopt this special rule, but it had no relation to their benefits. They found it costly to administer the Unemployment Insurance Scheme, and found very often that they were being made debt collectors for my right hon. Friend when he was Minister of Labour, and they refused to work the scheme, and in consequence of that, the special rules went by default.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Therefore, the National Union had ceased, before the end of last year, to administer the scheme. Is that what I understand? In that case I must blame the Minister and the Government, because here at the end of December is the rule which has been supplied by them in the White Paper. If so I am sorry that in this particular case they have misled both Houses of Parliament by having an inaccurate statement if that is the case. This indeed raises a new point. So far as this Union is concerned, inaccurate information has been given.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. This White Paper only applies to 1928.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Did they give it up before 1928?

Major ELLIOT rose—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it in order, while a Member of the Opposition is speaking, that he should give way to another Member of the Opposition, who should continue to debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: An hon. Member in possession of the House may give way to whom he likes.

Mr. HARDIE: Are we now discussing a question of Privilege or an Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion has been made, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." The discussion now is as to whether we should disagree or not.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) will examine the Paper he will find that, while no doubt the National Union of Railwaymen may have ceased to administer benefit on an earlier date, the rules are those in force as at December, 1929.

Mr. BROWN: If the right hon. Gentleman will go one stage further, on page 3 he will see "Registered Trade Unions paying £1,000 or more in unemployment, travelling and emigration benefit in 1928."

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Therefore, the case is made stronger. They may have paid unemployment benefit in 1928, but the point is that this principle is still in their rules at December, 1929. What is true of them is true also of the other Unions to which reference has been made in this White Paper. For that reason, I wish to ask Members of this House what they themselves think of this principle in the rules of the union to which they belong.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the members of your union?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member is in a state of semi-eruption. There are not many members of trade unions in the present Cabinet.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): There are several sitting on this bench.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: But there are not so many trade union members in this House. I would ask some of those trade union members who are Members of this House what they think of this rule in their own union? Is it right to have this principle in their union rules asking their members to look for work, or is it not? If it is right to have it in their own trade union rules, how can it be wrong to have it as a condition for Parliamentary benefit. If it is wrong to have it as a condition of Parliamentary benefit because it is too harsh, would it not be too harsh also in their own trade unions? I would ask those who are members, shall we say, of the Durham Miners' Union. There are the Member for Sedgefield (Mr.
Herriotts) and the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) in this House. They have a rule of this kind in their own trade union. Is it too harsh a rule in that union? And so it is with a number of the other Members. I would ask the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Wilfrid Whiteley), if he were here, whether he has it in the union of which he is a member and of which at one time he was a branch secretary. It is true of other unions to which other Members belong. I ask, with great earnestness, whether, if they are content to have that principle in their own trade union rules, they do not agree with the earlier statements both of the Minister and of the Attorney-General, that it ought to be included as a condition for benefit under the unemployment insurance system of the country as a whole.
I am entitled to ask this question of the Minister, and I will ask her if she can give me an answer at once. I will gladly give way to her. Does she still hold, or does she not hold, the principle that the State should have authority to call for effort to find work on the part of the claimant? Can she give me an answer to that question now or will she give it later on? I wish to put that specific question to her in the hope that she will give me an answer. That principle is in this Clause which has come from another place, and it is absent from the Clause which has been passed by this House. We are reduced to considering one or two main points affecting the present position. Are we or are we not to accept this principle, that the State can positively call upon a man to make an effort to find work? If we accept the principle, we have either to accept this, Clause as it comes to us, or, at any rate, we have to accept the principle in it and make it clear and beyond question.
If we do not accept it, the consequences have already been made clear. The consequences have been made clear by the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), among others. The hon. Member made the, consequences quite clear when he pointed out in this House the facts with regard to placing. The Ministry may endeavour to develop its placing; but it will never—and the hon. Member for West Nottingham is my
authority—be able to do so to such an extent that the offer of a job by the Ministry, or through the Ministry, can be made an adequate test. On the other hand, if it is not an adequate test, then we have the statement, assented to by the Government themselves, of the effect of the Clause, that many people, married women, who have done little or no work since marriage, seasonal workers and others, can get benefit; a considerable group of new claimants, consisting of persons who are not actually in the market as competitors for employment at all; That is the second point we have to consider.
It seems likely now that the present insurance system will have to be completely recast. If anything can doom it it will be the passing into law of an Act containing the original Clause as it left this House. It is a mixture. Little by little—while I was Minister, too—the principle of insurance has become abandoned and the principle of relief has crept in. There is no question that, if we adhere to the original Clause as it left this House, the principle of relief overshadows the principle of insurance. A mixture of the two is intolerable in a self-respecting State. They should be separated. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not support their separation?"] I wish I had done so, but at least I would not have been a party to debauching it in this way.
The next consideration is the effect of this Clause on employment. The Leader of the Liberal party, when the Bill was brought in, said that his great fear was of the accumulated effect on industry and on the country generally of the great expense that was being caused. He pointed to Members opposite and said that no doubt their wish was to break down the present social system by all this cumulative expenditure incurred by the Government. His fear must be very much greater now when an annual expenditure of over £4,000,000 has been added hastily in respect of this one Clause alone because the Government were rattled.
Let me put this point to the Government. Anybody who is conversant with
business in this country knows that it is not merely the magnitude of the unemployment figures which shows the gravity of the situation. You may get a very high figure during some temporary spell of cold weather, such as occurred last February, but the figures at the present moment are significent of much more than that. They are significent of a widespread depression in industry, not of a purely temporary character dependent on the conditions of the moment, but one which is likely to be of lasting hurt and damage to the country as a whole and to all those unfortunate men for whom some hon. Members profess such concern and who are most affected by this depression. The figures at the present moment are a true test. As everyone knows they are appalling. When we met after the Christmas Recess they were already 20,000 worse than the year before. When we had our last Debate in this House they had become 40,000 worse than the year before. To-day, the figures are nearly 50,000 worse than a year ago. This is the time, if they persist in their old Clause, when the Government choose to take a step which, in the opinion of all those who analyse the situation most carefully, is likely to hurt employment and retard recovery. I would -ask: Are they going deliberately to persist in their previous policy? [An HON. MEMBER: "Certainly!"] Their master's voice!

Mr. SIMMONS: Not the employers' voice, though.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: When the Clause which was sent to another place was placed in the Bill by this House everyone knew that the Government were confused and rattled and put it in as a concession, as has already been called out from those benches, to the pressure exercised upon them. The Government found out afterwards that there had been no real intention of carrying that pressure to its limit. Yet they persist in the clause which they put in, abandoning the principle which they themselves thought was vital. The consequences are likely to be of most far-reaching detriment to industry both by the actual financial burden imposed and by adding to the uncertainty of the depression.
We have had three weeks of leisure since then to reflect. It is always an awkward thing for any Government to admit that it has made a mistake. But we have found out the truth again and again in this House, that whenever an individual has made a mistake and is perfectly frank in making an apology and clearing it up, everybody thinks the better of him. I believe, though it may not be to the party advantage of the Opposition, the position of the Government in the country would be strengthened, if they were to say, having had time to reflect, that it was clear that in the stress and strain of the moment they had made a mistake. On the other hand, I believe that if they go on, this will be one further count in the indictment against them and that it will lead to their undoing if, in the words of an old writer:
They persevere stiff-neckedly in their naughtiness and sin.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. DICKSON: The Amendment must come with heavy effect upon the mind of the House. Its purpose is to strike at the heart of the Bill. It seeks to reimpose a brutal hardship and that murmuring sense of injustice which was heard from one end of the country to another. The ex-Minister of Labour, in support of his argument, has referred to trade union regulations. He said that what their Lordships in another place seek now to impose upon this House was in harmony with the best principles adopted by trade unions. He asked how something which was not harsh when operated by a trade union, became harsh when introduced into a Measure of this kind. He based his arguments upon that fallacious reasoning.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I said that the main basis of my argument was that it was a principle which both the Minister and the Attorney-General believed to be cardinal and essential.

Mr. DICKSON: I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he does not want to put me off. The main contention on which he
based his argument was that their Lordships were simply endeavouring to introduce a principle which trade unionists considered to be good and just in the administration of their own affaire. That was the basis of his argument, and it is entirely fallacious. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know perfectly well, and I imagine that he does know perfectly well, that a piece of machinery which is effective, humane and just in one element or atmosphere can, when removed to another element and under other conditions, be absolutely brutal, unjust and the opposite of humane. I will give an illustration. A liner is a very admirable piece of machinery for giving speed of transport in its proper element, when it is in the water, but it would make a poor show in transport if it were endeavouring to travel from London to Inverness by road. The difference between those two elements is not greater than the difference in the two elements which the right hon. Gentleman sought to reconcile in his argument.
What are the facts of the administration of the piece of insurance machinery? In the first place, we have the trade union. There you have regulations administered by men who are of the same membership, very largely of the same outlook and with the same knowledge of their trade as the men who are affected by the regulations. You have men there who have intimate knowledge of their trade and also knowledge of the character, mentality and fibre of the men. You have an understanding that you cannot have in the administration of the vast insurance machinery under insurance conditions. I am now assuming that what was said by one of my hon. Friends on this side was untrue, and that what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman is justified, although it is not justified. In trade unions the rules are administered by men who are in continual contact with the employing side of the industry for which they cater. They know whether or not it is reasonable for a man to say that there is no job for him. They are in a position to say definitely that jobs are here, there or elsewhere. Finally, the membership of the organisation can constitute their own court of appeal. If they have a sense of in-
justice they can appeal to their own peers, not in another place but in their own place.
Compare that position, that element, that machinery, with the element in which the right hon. Gentleman and Gentlemen in another place wish to put the machinery. It is not a bigger change than trying to put a liner on the road from London to Inverness. Nearly always you have men concerned who are not conversant with the conditions of industry, men who do not know whether there are jobs or not, men who have never tried to find out whether there were jobs, because the onus was not upon them to find out whether there were jobs or not. It is to the interests of a trade union, administering similar regulations, to find out that there is a job and to strike men off their roll for refusal to accept, and it was to the interests of the gentlemen administering the Insurance Acts to find that men were not looking for work, in order to save the fund by striking them off benefit. When you carry the machinery into this element, an entirely antagonistic element, the truth lies in the background, and it is in the knowledge of every hon. Member who has had any working-class experience. The truth is that you have asked men to do a grossly stupid thing. There might be one job and 10,000 men. We asked 10,000 men to go round in a weary tramp in the hope that one would be opposite to the door when it was opened. The 9,999 men who could not get the job had to be kept on a stupid and callous round, in order to satisfy the conditions of the Employment Exchanges.
I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that they should endeavour to introduce a little more humanity into this aspect of the unemployment problem. I have been fairly fortunate in my life. I have been unemployed for only three weeks, in nearly 30 years of working life. I never want the experience again, because going from place to place looking for work, and very often for something which is not there, being snubbed, being treated with contempt is the most humiliating experience that can come to any man who has any manhood and self-respect. The right hon. Gentleman bolstered up his argument by
examining the attitude of the trade unions on the question of not genuinely seeking work. I am not very well conversant with the rules of this House and I may perhaps get out of order, but I wonder why he did not examine the attitude of mind of gentlemen in another place who are seeking to impose this particular condition on the working class people of this country. I wonder how many of them would be disqualified for not genuinely seeking work. With some of the working class people it is an occasional lapse, but with the gentlemen who are seeking to impose this condition upon the working class people the condition of not genuinely seeking work is not only a habit but a profession, an hereditary profession. We have had in this House representatives whose families, as far as I know, have not genuinely sought work for 800 years.

Sir BASIL PETO: The e is nothing about genuinely seeking work in this Amendment.

Mr. DICKSON: When the time comes I may give attention to the hon. Baronet. As a Socialist and as one who does not believe in class distinction, as one who does not believe in class war but who believes that class war can be removed only by removing the cause of class war, I suggest that it comes with very ill grace from the other puce to seek to impose this particular condition upon whole masses of working class people.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Impose what condition?

Mr. DICKSON: The condition of looking for jobs that are not there. It has been the apex of stupidity to look for a needle in a haystack Gentleman in another place insist that, working class people shall look for a needle in a haystack, with the proviso that the needle is not there. The right hon. Gentleman point out that the unemployment figures are now 50,000 higher than they were this time last year. I suggest, in all seriousness, that that means that another 50,000 people are to be condemned, if we accept this Amendment, to look for jobs that are not there. That addendum to the right hon. Gentleman's speech weakened rather than strengthened his argument. This House will do a very great wrong to honest, deserving, eager men and women
if it re-imposes the condition set forth in the Amendment. I do not know how any man who knows anything about working class conditions, who looks into the face of an unemployed man week after week, certainly if he has himself been unemployed, can think of what happened under the old conditions without a deep sense of shame and humiliation. That sense of shame and humiliation ought to be present to the minds of every man and woman who seeks to impose such a condition. I hope that the House will reject their Lordships' Amendment, and that we shall say that the only true test of a man not genuinely seeking work or being desirous of work is that there shall be some measure by which it can be said that there is a job or a reasonable chance of a job. If a man refuses the job, I hold no brief for him. I have no use for men who take from the community without giving to the community, whether they are dukes or dockers. If that was applied generally, some people would be in a much worse condition than they are today. I hope the House will reject this Amendment and will remove a black stain from the Statute Book and a shame and a humiliation from great masses of the unhappy working classes of this country.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: It is rather unforfunate that this Amendment should be considered in the atmosphere in which it is now being discussed. My impression of the Debate on this question during the Committee stage was that the House was more or less agreed on the essential principle of the test which should be applied, and that the difficulty the Committee felt was in finding a set of words which would fulfil the desires of us all. Hon. Members disagreed with the form of words which were first introduced because they thought they did not carry out the intention. We disagreed with the form of words which ultimately left the Committee because we in our turn thought that they did not carry out the purpose of the combined intention of the Committee. In these circumstances, I submit that this is an instance where the Lords Amendment does deserve the most careful consideration. We have to remember that the Clause which supplanted the first Clause was given birth to under suspicious surroundings, and, secondly, that the Lords have not merely negatived that
Clause, not merely struck it out and put something in its place with which the House of Commons had already disagreed, but that they have inserted for our consideration an entirely new set of words designed to carry out the principle upon which we are agreed, and, therefore, words which deserve the earnest consideration of the House.
I do not want to weary hon. Members by going over the origin of what is called the Hayday Clause, but it will be fresh in their minds that that Clause was not the outcome of an inquiry; it was not the outcome of the right hon. Lady's consideration of the Bill. But was an entirely different Clause, containing the principle which the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Dickson) has attacked so strongly, was a Clause recommended by the Committee, decided on by the right hon. Lady and defended so ably and strongly by the right hon. Lady and the Attorney-General. It is mere humbug to say that the Clause as it went to the other place was the result of the combined wisdom of the Committee. If hon. Members opposite want to maintain that position they must not only affirm that hon. Members on these benches have no claim to any part of the collective wisdom of the House, but must also understand that their own Ministers, their own Cabinet and Front Bench, have no part or parcel in that wisdom either. We all know that the right hon. Lady had this Clause in her mind when she was considering the Bill, and she must have considered and rejected it. She preferred the Clause to which she agreed. Are we to visualise a picture, after the Debate in Committee when the original Clause was withdrawn, of the right hon. Lady running to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and saying, "My dear Chancellor cellor," or whatever she calls him, "the hon. Member for West Nottingham has-found a new formula. It is one which never occurred to me, but it seems to satisfy everybody. I am afraid it is going to cost you another £2,000,000 but you must find that amount too." To which the Chancellor said: "My dear Lady, why did you not tell me before that the 'boys' wanted this?"
The Clause as it went to the Lords was not the result of the cogitations of the right hon. Lady, nor was it part of the
collective wisdom of the Committee. It was simply introduced because she bowed to the desires of her friends in high places. We on this side at any rate have a right to be suspicious of the Clause as it left the Committee. I want the House to consider the new Clause which has come down to us from the other place. The hon. Member for Lanark has just made an eloquent speech. He complained of the brutality of the new Clause. He referred in invidious terms to the brutality of Members of the other place who would introduce such a principle. He did not seem to recollect that the right hon. Lady, who was sitting within such short distance of him, was guilty of even greater brutality in the Clause she originally introduced. Some of the arguments of the hon. Member were entirely devoted to a Clause which reproduces the old principle of not genuinely seeking work. He used the expression "not genuinely seeking work," and he gave instances which came under the old administration. He complained of the administration of an entirely different Clause, but he did not attempt to discuss what I want to discuss, and that is whether in fact there is not a great difference between this Clause which comes down to us from another place and the old not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause; whether, in fact, it does not more nearly carry out the general desire of the Committee than the Clause which we owe to the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday).

Mr. DICKSON: If the hon. Member will look at line 4 of the Lords Amendment he will see the words "that the claimant has not endeavoured to obtain employment," which is exactly the same thing.

Mr. STANLEY: I intend to dissect the Amendment, but I will come to that point later. I want to see whether we can find agreement on the principle. I take it that hon. Members in all parts of the House do desire that the unemployed man should make some effort of his own to find a job. It is agreed that he should not wait for the Employment Exchange, especially under the conditions which exist now, when they are not fully informed of the jobs that are vacant. Hon. Members are not content
that he should depend entirely on the efforts of the Employment Exchanges to place him. Their objection has been that this effort to place some onus on the man to find work for himself has resulted in an abuse of the principle; has resulted in what they term administrative persecution. What are the principal differences between this proposal and the Clause of not genuinely seeking work? First of all, there is the question of the onus of proof. Under the not-genuinely-seeking-work proposal the onus of proof lay upon the man; he had to prove that he was genuinely seeking work. Under this proposal, the onus is upon the Employment Exchange to prove that the claimant has not endeavoured to obtain employment and, therefore, one of the things which hon. Members opposite were demanding in Committee is secured by this Amendment. The onus is shifted from the applicant to the Exchange.
What was the other principal complaint against the not-genuinely-seeking-work definition? It was that it contained an objective test, that the Employment Exchange had to decide whether a man was genuine or not, and that that could not be done without being able to enter into the man's head and see what his thoughts were on the subject. Hon. Members will notice under this new Clause that that objective test is removed and that they have to prove definitely that he is making no effort to find work. They have not to prove that he is genuine but that he is making no effort to obtain work. These two main complaints of hon. Members opposite against the previous Clause has been fully met by the Amendment of another place. Why do we think that this form of words is superior to the form of the Clause as it left this House? We believe that this will not impose any of the hardships to which the hon. Member for Lanark has referred; that it will not exclude from benefit any man except the sort of man whom all hon. Members in this House will agree is not entitled to benefit. We believe that the advantage of the new Clause lies in the fact that it will obviate the danger there was under the Clause of the hon. Member for West Nottingham, of people who are not entitled to benefit, and whom we all agree should not get benefit, applying for it and getting it. Our support for
this Clause is based on that ground that it does not reduce the advantages given to the genuine unemployed man by the previous Clause but does reduce the possibility of the new test being taken advantage of by those whom we all agree should not have a share in the benefits of the scheme.
I think the effort of the other House is at least worthy of the consideration of hon. Members, and I am sure they have given consideration to it, and is also worthy of some explanation from the right hon. Lady or the Attorney-General. I should be delighted to hear the Attorney-General show his usual dexterity in explaining why this new Clause does not meet all the requirements which he so eloquently, so forcibly and so poetically laid down to the Committee on a previous occasion, but which during the next week he so eloquently, so forcibly and so poetically reversed. I hope we shall have the privilege of hearing from the Front Bench not the sort of prejudice which the hon. Member for Lanark has introduced into this discussion, but really solid reasons why we cannot consider that this new Clause does meet the wishes of the House. I hope that we shall have some figure as to the difference it will make in the number of those who would be refused benefit as compared with those who Would be refused under the previous Clause, and some good reason why we should accept the Motion to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: As one of those who took part in the discussions on the Second Reading and also in the Committee stage on Clause 4, I should like to address one or two observations, which will be very short but to the point, why the House should disagree with the Amendment which has come to us from another place. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) recommended this new Clause to the House as one which ought to receive our very serious consideration, but the House, I think, would not have failed to observe that in recommending that course he very carefully refrained from committing himself in any way to the effect that the Clause would have if incorporated in the Bill. He skated, indeed, with the great
facility required in covering very thin ice. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) has endeavoured to fill the gap left in the arguments of his Leader on the Front Bench, but after due consideration his arguments still leave me quite unconvinced, and I speak with some experience of the way in which these things work out. The two Members who have spoken from above the Gangway on the Conservative side of the House have treated very lightly the way in which this House came to its decision on Clause 4 before the Bill left here. Let me recall as briefly as possible what actually happened. It will be remembered that when the Bill was first brought in—this will not be denied in any quarter—the Government had given very careful consideration to the original Clause 4. On the Second Reading, in the second speech of the Debate, the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) pointed out at once that the Clause was creating new tests, with which he was himself dissatisfied. There was a new test of diligence, and, I think, of negligence. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Westmorland did not express dissatisfaction with the Clause.
When we got a little bit further up the Conservative Benches we heard one of the hon. Members from Belfast who was very active in his dissent, and he spoke with knowledge of the working of the Act in Belfast. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) is here, but right away from the Second Reading and through the Committee stage he was in direct opposition to the Clause as drafted and in support of the Clause later put in the Bill. On the Committee stage it became evident at once that the whole of the Members of the House who represented industrial constituencies were dissatisfied with the original Clause. The matter has assumed almost a constitutional aspect. It has been spoken of outside as the revolt of the Commons. We had not got very far before we had the remarkable spectacle of Members trying to draft upon the Floor of the House a form of words or a formula which in their view would give relief to a large number of individuals who were suffering what was not only an undeserved, but an unintended and unpremeditated injustice. Attention was focused on the matter by the right hon.
and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). Afterwards there was further consultation, and the Clause in the Bill came back again to the Floor of the House, where it was supported by a large majority.

Major ELLIOT: On no occasion whatever did any consultation take place with Members on this side of the House.

Mr. WHITE: I accept that statement with one reservation, and that is that the learned Attorney-General's invitation to consultations was to all those Members who had taken part in the Debate. At least one Member of the Conservative party did, in fact, attend those consultations.

Major ELLIOT: It is a fact that we took a very considerable part in the Debate on the Clause and that we carried our Amendment to a Division. It is perfectly futile to suggest that we took no part in the Debate on the Clause.

Mr. WHITE: That is not the point with which I am dealing. My point is that the suggestion that the Clause in the Bill as it left this House was lightly arrived at and was not sufficiently thought out, is entirely incorrect. On the contrary, the Clause did represent in a large measure the collective wisdom of the House, and especially, for what it may be worth, that of those Members who were particularly concerned with this problem as representatives of industrial constituencies. That was the Clause which went to another place. I have given some consideration to the procedure in the other House, and it seems to me that the new Clause which comes to us on this occasion does not represent a carefully planned scheme at all. Its origin seems to have been of the most random character possible. What took place was that Clause 4 was deleted altogether, and then it seems to have occurred to some Noble Lord that something should be put in its place. Apparently he, having taken up the White Paper, pitched upon a form of words which seemed to him to fill the Bill. If it were desired to insert and to give effect to a set of trade union rules, one asks why the rules of the National Union of Railwaymen should have been selected? We all know that
it is a great and powerful union, with many able and distinguished men in its ranks.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: The rule is inoperative; it is not in operation at all. It was framed 30 years ago to meet individual cases.

Mr. WHITE: That does not affect my point.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I wanted to help the hon. Member.

Mr. WHITE: My point is simply this: If the other place desired to insert a trade union rule in the Bill and to make a selection, why should the rule of the National Union of Railwaymen be chosen, whether operative or inoperative? It is a great union, but its experience in the matter of unemployment is quite different from that of other unions. Members of the union have been particularly fortunate in the matter of unemployment. Furthermore, when the question arises of finding employment for railwaymen when they are unemployed, the matter has to be gone about in a very different way from the ordinary. Everyone who has studied the matter knows that the railways have their regular staffs, and also they have, to use a most anomalous phrase, their "permanent casuals," to whom they naturally go for the filling of accidental and incidental vacancies. Their problem is quite different from that of other unions.
If the Noble Lords who carried this Amendment wished to insert in the Bill something which had the fall authority of trade union practice, they would have done better to have looked to the practice of some of those unions which unfortunately have had such a heavy task, which have incurred great cost and have gained valuable experience in dealing with unemployment. There is no real suggestion or argument in favour of putting trade union rules into force in this legislation unless it is based on the very serious and unfortunate assumption that the powerful trade unions or the bulk of the unemployed, when unemployed, will be less honest in their treatment of an Insurance Fund, and less careful to guard it against wilful abuse, if it were a State fund administered by the Ministry of Labour, than they would
be if it were a fund collected and administered by their own trade union. That is a very serious assumption to make. Therefore I remain at this moment quite unconvinced of the desirability of accepting this Amendment which has come down to us from another place.
Having regard to the character which was given to the Clause in its original conception, and having regard to the haphazard way in which this Amendment has come down to us, I think this House would stultify itself if it went back on its previous decision. It is true that Clause 4 of the Bill has yet to be tried out. I must say that since it was discussed there have been representations made to me leading me to the conclusion that in some respects it might be improved. But I think we should be stultifying ourselves if we went back on a decision arrived at after so much care, and supported a decision arrived at in so random a way.

Mr. SEXTON: I sympathised with the fight hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) in his attempt to make out his case. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) had only to interrupt once or twice on one particular point, and the right hon. Gentleman collapsed right away. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) told us, in effect, that there was no difference between the Clause sent back to us from another place and the one which another place deleted from the Bill. If that is so, why make the change? The Clause sent up from this House was deliberately framed and represented the collective wisdom of this House. One thing that strikes me as peculiar is the sudden affection of the party opposite and of another place for the rules and regulations of trade unions. It comes with queer grace from a party whose record for half a century has been one of persistent persecution of trade unionism and trade union rules. Moreover, we still have a lively recollection of judge-made law. We do not forget the Taff Vale decision; we do not forget the Osborne judgment. We shall never forget the Trade Unions Act, which was deliberately and wilfully drafted in this House in order to kill the trade unions.
Even though the substituted Clause was quoted as a trade union rule by an illustrious legal Member of another place, we already have examples of trade union rules which have been Judge-made. We have example after example of trade union rules affected by decisions given in the Courts of this land, and when an ex-High Court Judge in the other place suddenly discovers that the best thing to do in a particular instance, is to suggest that a trade union rule, whether operative or not, should be included in an Act of Parliament, my suspicions are immediately aroused. An hon. Member said that the suggestion which comes to us from the other place embodies the honourable desire of this House, but how often has the honourable desire of this House been absolutely wrecked by decisions in the Law Courts? What became of the Trade Union Act, 1872, which was intended to be the great charter of the trade unions? It was absolutely smashed and yet we are told by Noble Lords in the other place that they know how to deal with trade union laws better than those who have served a lifetime of practical apprenticeship in these matters, and who can look back on the history of trade unionism and realise what has been done by the Judges in the past. Some reference has been made by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) to the poetic manner in which the Attorney-General dealt with Clause 4. If the hon. Member were here, I would ask him to extend his charity, or his admiration as the case may be, to a poetical effusion which occurred to me inspired by this discussion and which, in my opinion, covers the whole case:
The Earl of Fitznoodle in ermine and red,
Strongly objects to the nation being bled,
For the payment of doles to loafers who shirk,
Their duty, in not genuinely looking for work.
But the Earl of Fitznoodle has cousins and aunts
Who've existed for decades on State supplied grants;
Perish the thought—not the dole but a different plan—
That their ancestors lived in the time of Queen Anne.
Thus hundreds of thousands went into their fobs
Whether genuinely or otherwise seeking for jobs.

Sir B. PETO: I wish to call the attention of the House to a consideration which
is, I think, even more to the point than the interesting poetical effusion of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton). We are debating a Clause which has been sent down from another place, and we are doing so without a single word of explanation from the Government as to why they think that the words selected in another place are bad or wrong or inappropriate, in whole or in part, or would produce worse effects than the words which this House put into the Bill. That places us in some difficulty. It has become evident how much the course adopted by the Government is likely to cause long and in some respects unnecessary Debate, because we had had no direction as to the particular reasons which the Government have for moving to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment. In view of the fact that previous speakers have quoted words which do not appear in this proposed new Clause, the words about" genuinely seeking work," I ask the House to consider what will be the effect of this simple Clause of six lines which is suggested to take the place of a Clause occupying a whole page. We have been told that it is a sound principle, that anyone who refuses work offered to him ought not to obtain benefit, and that is precisely what the proposed Clause says. May I ask the attention of the House to the exact words:
If on a claim for benefit, it be proved that the claimant has refused and refuses, without reason, to work when employment is found for him "—
I have not heard a word of objection to the Clause as far as that
—or if it be proved that the claimant is not endeavouring to obtain employment "—
These seem to be apt and appropriate words, and, at any rate, worthy of consideration by the Government, especially when we have heard again and again of the difficulty of finding words in place of those which, by general agreement of the House, had often been mistakenly applied, namely, "genuinely seeking work." The Clause goes on:
he shall be disqualified from receiving benefit for a period of six weeks, or for such shorter period, and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be.
These words imply in every case that the man will be disqualified only for six weeks or less, if it has been decided by
the umpire or the court of referees that he was not endeavouring to obtain employment or, alternatively, that he had refused or was refusing work which had been found for him. Not only do I say that we ought to have had some explanation from the Government as to why they consider that these words are unjust, or that they will work unjustly against those seeking benefit. I go further, and say that they are very apt words, quite apart from the source from which they are derived. We have heard about the rules of the National Union of Railwaymen, and a question was raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) as to whether this rule was in operation in 1929 or had ceased to operate in 1928. What on earth does that matter? It was a rule of this great trade union, presumably, for a considerable number of years. If they found it unnecessary, the special circumstances of that union and the small number of its members out of work make that very easily understood. But where ought we to look for words to put into a Clause of this kind, if not to the rules of trade unions, broadly and generally, which were operating benefit for years before State unemployment benefit was ever thought of at all?
We may fairly look to the rules of friendly societies in this matter and, broadly and generally, it will be found that all these organisations, by one formula or another, have always made it a condition that there must be some endeavour on the part of the member seeking benefit, to find work for himself—not that somebody else is to find work for him—before he can receive benefit. I ask again, what is the objection to these words? We have heard speeches which imply that nothing which comes from another place can possibly be acceptable to this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to note that attitude of mind. There has been from time to time—during the proceedings on the Parliament Act and even before that—a great deal of discussion as to the functions of another place, but I never heard it disputed that a second Chamber has the duty of revising legislation and giving the first Chamber a further opportunity of considering words, even words which have been deliberately put into a Bill. I think sufficient has already been made of the point as to how this particular
Clause was inserted. It is obviously the duty of any second Chamber to do such revising work. That is the position now, and in face of that position, I think it is discourteous to this House as well as to another place that we should have a mere Motion from the Parliamentary Secretary to disagree with this Amendment. We are entitled to a full explanation from the Minister.
On the general question of whether these words are appropriate or not, I would point out that there is a tendency among hon. Members opposite to imply that those who constitute the main Opposition are, in some way, unsympathetic to the claims of people who have the misfortune to be unable to find work. It is suggested that we like Clauses such as that former Clause under which, undoubtedly, in many cases committees asked people to go round looking for jobs. The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Dickson) said, I think, that as many as a thousand people were sent marching round where there was only one job. In my own constituency I have had some experience of this matter, and my sympathies are entirely with those who were workers in the particular trade which I am about to mention. We had for a time shipbuilding on a small scale, and a ship-repairing industry. The ship repairing continues to a certain extent, but the other has ceased. I know cases of people who were engineers or ship repairers in which the committee insisted that they should show that they had gone all round to look for jobs, although in my opinion the only jobs available were wholly unstated to them. I have had cases of seamen who were ashore after a voyage. They were told to look for land jobs, though they could not possibly have done the work.
Is there anything in the proposed Clause to suggest that that state of things would operate under it? I say not. The Clause only makes two conditions, and it is perfectly clear that only in a case where the court of referees or the umpire decides that the man has refused a job offered to him, or is not endeavouring to obtain employment, that it would operate. Take the case of the seaman. If he shows that he was endeavourng to get another job in his own proper trade, that would be sufficient to satisfy the court of referees. There is nothing about march-
ing round looking for jobs where none exist. As far as I can judge, another place have found the apt and appropriate words, and in the absence of even the slightest indication from the Government of their reasons for refusing those words, I—and I think I can speak for my friends—disagree with the Government and agree with another place that these words are better than the long rigmarole of a Clause which was inserted, in such peculiar circumstances, in this House.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. HAYDAY: It has been said that no reference has been made to the suggested Amendment which has come from another place and that no argument has been used to point out any dangers included in the Lords Amendment that are not possible under the original Amendment as the Clause left this House. I think the distinction is very clear indeed, and that the Lords Amendment to take the place of that which was put in the Bill by the people's elected representatives will bring back the old method of inquisition. You will find inquiry being made. I think it was the fear of the House of Commons when discussing the Bill on Second Reading, that if there were any words, no matter how simple and innocent they might appear, that were capable of developing into a form of inquisition against the unemployed person, it would be as well to have no such words and to make the Clause as clear and plain as the English language could make it. This Amendment would at once commence the inquisition as to whether an Exchange official was right in accusing an unemployed person of not endeavouring Co obtain employment. As soon as he suggests to a court of referees that a person is not making an effort to secure employment, the unemployed person is at once put on his defence, and must at once say "But I am." Then the inquisition commences. They say, "What have you done? How have you done it? What effort have you made?" The charge is made, and the onus of disproving it always falls upon the weakest, in this case the unemployed.
If ever there was justification for this House not agreeing with a Lords' Amendment, it is now, and for the very reason which the right hon. Member for Tam-
worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) adduced. He said there is an increase in the number of unemployed and that, because the House of Lords has acted in the capacity of protectors of the taxpayer, we propose to dissent from their views. The Noble Lords, when discussing this matter, gave no argument for the abolition of Clause 4. If now we are to understand that their action was prompted by a desire to protect the taxpayer, it can only be done for a purpose, and that is to diminish the calls upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and so reduce the outgoings and the possibility of the Exchequer having to come further to the aid of the unfortunate unemployed. Surely the logic is this. If the right hon. Gentleman says there are more unemployed and the Government's Clause will make it easier for them to get benefit and, as I admit, easier for them to retain benefit once they have established their right to it, and that the Noble Lords have been prompted by a desire to protect the taxpayer, there will be more distress, greater demands, greater restrictions to protect the taxpayer, and between the two the squeezing harder and tighter of the mass of unemployed who may have reason to call for some degree of benefit.
I do not want to be unfair in criticism of the Noble Lords, but I say that when this House of Commons, upon a matter dealing with industrial difficulties caused by trade depression and Capitalist development, gives the thought that it has given to the subject—and this in part will answer a query put by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Stanley), who said that the original Clause was not the result of any inquiry or investigation—the Noble Lords are unfair in lightly treating an opinion based upon experience, investigation, and discussion in this House by people who are in direct touch with the citizens of the country. The House of Lords, sitting down in some atmosphere of comfort, remind me of the old lady who visited a poor cottager in cold weather. On going into a cold room, she said to her coachman, "John, when we get home you must remind me that we must send these poor folk a pair of blankets, as it is very cold." But when that same kind-hearted lady got into the atmosphere of her warm drawing-room, and shed herself of her furs,
she said, "John, I do not think there is any need now for you to take those blankets. There is quite a change in the atmosphere." The atmosphere of the House of Commons, with the full blast of its knowledge and experience of this problem is one thing, but in the other House the Noble Lords are in a different atmosphere.

Mr. D. G. SOMERV1LLE: You had better be careful, you may be one yourself.

Mr. HAYDAY: Certainly those experienced in unemployment problems can speak feelingly, and with a great knowledge of what it means to be idle, and in the atmosphere in which they find themselves, out of the greatness of their hearts, they feel that the atmosphere surrounding them, as unemployed persons, is the atmosphere of comfort that surrounds the rest of the unemployed persons in industry. I never heard any argument beyond that, and I think it is an insulting argument. I have heard it said in this House that we are demoralising our people by giving them just that modicum of support that will enable them to keep body and soul together during a period of distress, that to protect the taxpayer that suffering is necessary, and that we must tighten up the rules against them in defence of the taxpayer.
My hon. Friend said it had never been the subject of inquiry, but I would remind him of the Morris Committee, and that they were 10 days listening to evidence and discussing the Report, that two members of that Committee supported some test, that two other members of equal importance suggested that the offer of a job was the only real test that should be applied, that one disagreed with the other four, and that one who was a representative from the Department did not sign the Report. Those who heard that evidence and those who care to read it can get more eloquent facts from those who came from the distressed areas and dealt directly with the problem than they have ever heard on the Floor of this House, facts which, if we spoke them here, hon. Members would simply say was rhetorical sob-stuff. They were plain facts.
The right hon. Gentleman makes much of trade union rules. All these trade
union rules were submitted to members of the Morris Committee, and I protested against them being discussed unless we heard evidence in relation to them. What right have we to have rules, the purpose of which no one knows without hearing evidence? What right have we to have them produced and discussed, when they deal with entirely different sets of circumstances from those under a national unemployments insurance scheme? They may represent a body of men of 1,000 membership, on low wages, voluntary contributors to a fund, who have only their own little contributions with which to make a little provision, with no State aid and no employers' aid; men who work with Tom, Dick, and Harry and will sit and talk with an applicant, and not ask him to go into a dozen other trades outside his own occupation. Surely you are not going to attach all that importance in these circumstances to those rules, and say that they should be applied here. Would you agree to apply in all social services anything that had not been tested by evidence and by questions in these matters?
The right hon. Gentleman opposite said we had been doing nothing but debauching unemployment insurance, and that the Lords Amendment would help us to get back on to the right track. Again, is there not behind that the intention to tighten up the scheme, that this test shall be so applied as to exclude many thousands who are at present drawing unemployment benefit, and to prevent others possibly from being able to secure the benefit even in the first instance? Debauching unemployment insurance? Who shall allege that against a Labour Government?
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.
People who live in glass-houses should be very careful. Let them remember 1911, 1916 and 1918, when they gave ex-service men from direct Treasury funds out-of-work donation. Let them remember 1920. Who was responsible for that Act, which at once destroyed all semblance of unemployment insurance as insurance is counted? Who debauched Unemployment Insurance when they robbed the 1911 fund of its accumulated £22,000,000 to pay the ex-Service men whom they had jettisoned from the Unemployment Fund?
What political capital do hon. Members expect to make in 1930 out of a challenge across the Floor of the House that the Labour party, because of a clause of the character which was sent up to the House of Lords, is debauching Unemployment Insurance? If Noble Lords and Members of this House talk of debauching unemployed persons, let them look at the examples of the debauching influences. Their slanderous statements to the unfortunate unemployed have helped many of them—and I do not accuse hon. Members that it was to their pleasure—to premature graves. Will anybody deny it? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] Every day in the papers we read of suicides because of the inability to find work, and because of the distress consequent upon the disallowance of unemployment benefit and the difficulty of securing relief in any form. Are you glad that this great army of unemployed of 1,400,000 is signing on, and that only about 1,100,000 to 1,200,000 are getting any benefit at all? Do you even want to reduce that number? Will you deny that in the White Paper which the Department issued, it was asserted that you can count on another 80,000 coming on the fund if this Clause, as originally sent up, is allowed to stand? If you agree, why are you supporting the Lords Amendment which has no other purpose than to prevent that 80,000 from coming on to benefit? If we were not fighting at the moment in a political arena, you would, I am sure, say, "We know that this has got into such a chaotic state, that we will help to remodel the whole thing, and make an effort that will ease the conditions of these people rather than go on increasing their anxieties." By 31st January, at least, 30,000 of those who have been turned off under the old not-genuinely-seeking-work Clause, which is still operating, have a right to make another application for a reconsideration of their cases under the extension of the transitional period. The more this Clause is held up, the more you are handicapping the Department in dealing with these applications.
I have been a little surprised to learn of the increased interest in this Clause from the Conservatives. When we were debating Clause 4 very little contribution was made from the Conservative Benches during the whole of the discus-
sion. Whether it was because there were difficulties on this side, and that they preferred to sit quiet and look on, I do not know, but I suggest that that is not the attitude of those who really desire to give a helping hand. If the difficulty were there, it was the business of everyone, in whatever part of the House they sat, to make a helpful suggestion. The only suggestion we got was at the end, and it was that Clause 4 should be withdrawn; but on the earlier Amendments to the original Clause, the Conservatives had taken no part at all. [Interruption.] I say that in the earlier part of the Debate on Clause 4 the Conservative party took no part.

Major ELLIOT: Every time I hear that statement repeated, I wish to make the definite point that it is not accurate.

Mr. HAYDAY: The OFFICIAL REPORT proves it. I am rather surprised that this intense interest has been created in a Lords' Amendment to a Clause, during the discussion of which the Conservatives did not make that contribution which anybody, desirous of helping to frame a Clause to meet the circumstances of the case, would have made. I leave it at that; my hon. and gallant Friend must take it as my opinion, and he must make whatever he can of it in his speech. When the noble Lords quoted these trade union rules, they did not know how the rules were applied, what were the circumstances of their creation, and they did not know that the rules had been discussed by the Morris Committee. They did not know that there was no evidence or cross-examination as to the circumstances that brought the rules into being. A scheme of national insurance cannot be brought down to the basis of the rules of any section, or of the application of rules that may be made in a strictly voluntary sense, perhaps to deal with 1,000 persons. The rules of an Act of Parliament are intended to cover the interests of 12,500,000 insured persons.

Mr. ATKINSON: I am not concerned very much about trade union rules. After all, trade unions are dealing with their own funds, and they can do with them what they like. I want to discuss this point as a matter of principle. As I understand it, the question really is whether or not a duty should be placed
upon a man claiming benefit of endeavouring to find work for himself. That is the real difference between the two Clauses. Under the Clause in the Bill, it is obvious that a man seeking benefit need do nothing whatever. He can stop at home in bed, and do nothing unless somebody comes along with an offer of work, or an indication that there is a job for him, or unless he receives certain directions telling him what he has to do. In other words, unless somebody gives him a job, or gives him directions as to how he can get one, he can stop in bed and do nothing whatever. The Lords' Amendment in definite language imposes a duty on the man of endeavouring to obtain employment.
Some reference has been made to honest, deserving and eager men and women. Would any honest, deserving and eager man or woman really complain about being under an obligation to endeavour to find work? I think not. I can well understand people to whom these words do not apply resenting the obligation of having to find work. I suppose that this is the last opportunity that we shall have of discussing this question of principle. As I see it, it is this: Is the Government of the greatest industrial nation that there is, to lay down as part of the law of the land and as a principle for the guidance of its working people, that not one of them need make any endeavour to find work for himself? That is the principle, and you are beginning your tuition early, for you are taking the child of fifteen, and the lesson which you are inculcating into that child means this, and nothing else: "My child, you need through the rest of your life make no effort whatever to find work." [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"]
I make no complaint that the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour has not expressed her views about this Clause to-day. We know what her views are, for she has told us over and over again, and I do not think that we have any right to expect her to get up and say what she has said so often. Let me just remind the House. In introducing this Bill, the right hon. Lady referred to the words "genuinely seeking work" and said that they were right in principle. She said that in their-natural meaning they were a proper requirement, but she went on to complain that they had been
turned into the application of a psychological test. That psychological test was contained in a judgment of the Umpire, but I would like to remind the House that that judgment is to be found in the appendix to the Blanesburgh Report. The judgment and the test are discussed in the Report, and the suggestion on page 47 of the Report is that there should be no change in the test, but that there should be a statutory definition. Note these words, that the statutory definition should be
in keeping with the policy followed by the Umpire, of which, if we may say so, we entirely approve.
So that in the Blanesburgh Report the right hon. Lady has said that she entirely approved of the test laid down. In introducing this Bill, she said that the words were right in principle, but that they were wrongly applied. If they are right in principle, you surely cannot put it lower than this, that you are admitting that at least there must be and ought to be some duty upon men and women to look after themselves. Two objections were raised to this test of genuinely seeking work. The one was directed to the word "genuinely." What was "genuinely"? It was a foolish word ever to have introduced, because it was capable of many interpretations, and it did perhaps involve an inquiry as to what was going on at the back of a man's mind. That word has gone, and is not introduced into the Lords Amendment. The second objection was in the question of the burden of proof. It was said, and might be said, that under the old test, the workman had to prove that he was genuinely seeking work, and it was very easy for the tribunal to say, "We do not know one way or another, but you have not satisfied us." No doubt a great deal of injustice was done by the burden of proof being upon him and by its being so easy for the tribunal to say, "Well, we are not satisfied." But that burden has gone. The amended Clause reads:
If, on a claim for benefit, it be proved that the claimant has refused 
and so on,
or if it be proved that the claimant is not endeavouring to obtain employment.
The burden is now upon the insurance officer, who has to prove to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the man is not endeavouring to find work, and if the
position is left with the tribunal saying, "We do not know one way or the other, we cannot tell," they are bound to continue to pay the man his benefit. They have now got to be satisfied of the negative—that he is not endeavouring to find work. The hon. Member who spoke last said all the insurance officer will have to do will be to suggest that the man is not endeavouring to find work, and the old inquisition will begin all over again. That is not the fact. Under the amended Clause the burden of proof is laid upon the person who alleges it, and until that burden of proof is discharged the man would be left in possession of his right to benefit.
The two real objections which were ever seriously urged against the old Clause are not reproduced here, and it boils down to this simple question of principle. Is it or is it not to be part of the law of the land that a man shall be under a duty to do something for himself? If we are going to leave the Clause as it was when it was sent to another place, we are saying in the most emphatic and the clearest way to every worker in the country, indeed, to every worker in the Empire, that the British principle is that a man and a woman are under no obligation to endeavour to find work for themselves. If we accept the Clause in its amended form we are affirming the principle that the man shall be under a duty to endeavour to find work, and that he shall be presumed to be performing that duty until the contrary is proved against him.
Something has been said about the extra, cost. Of course it is going to cost far more to adopt the principle for which hon. Members opposite are contending. That was conceded when the new Clause "was brought in; I forget how much more, but it was several millions more. It is going to cost far more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer saved when he stood up to Europe during his protest about the Young plan. A terrific fuss was made about the £2,250,000 that he saved then, but far more than that is now to be thrown to the winds in this way, and unnecessarily and unjustly thrown to the winds, because no one on the opposite side of the House would have the courage to get up and say, "We think a man ought to get his benefit even if he is not endeavouring to find work.

Mr. HAYDAY: You take it they are not endeavouring to find work.

Mr. ATKINSON: Until the contrary is proved, the assumption remains that they are endeavouring to find work. But does anyone on the opposite side of the House really think it is right to lay down as a principle that even if it be proved up to the hilt that a man has deliberately not tried to get work, even if it proved that he has stopped in bed for a whole week doing nothing, even if it be proved that he has been drunk every day and making no endeavour to do anything—do you really say that that man ought to have benefit?

Mr. HAYDAY: Do you mean to suggest that there are unemployed persons in the category you have mentioned?

Mr. ATKINSON: There may be some, and there may be many more when you lay down this principle; but that is not an answer to my question. I am asking whether any hon. Member opposite thinks that a man who does that kind of thing ought still to be entitled to his benefit?

Mr. HAYDAY: Offer him a job.

Mr. ATKINSON: The hon. Member says "Offer him a job." Then he really does think the man can stop in bed till somebody offers him a job. [Interruption.] No country ever became great on a principle of that sort, and I am perfectly certain that this country will not remain great when you inculcate principles of that kind in the minds of the workers.

Mr. ALPASS: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but such statements have been made here that, in the interests of those whom I represent, I feel bound to ask the House to listen to me for two or three minutes. It seems to me that the weakness of the ease which hon. Members opposite are trying to make lies in the implication that ordinarily the unemployed do not seek for work. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think the speech to which we have just listened confirms that view up to the hilt.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: The position is that so long as there is any percentage at all, however fractional, it will defeat the honest purpose of this Measure, and we have got to safeguard that position.

Mr. ALPASS: My reply to that is that you would penalise and treat unjustly the vast majority in order to catch one or two. That is the only logical deduction from that statement.

Sir R. HORNE: It might as well be suggested that because we have a criminal law we regard all men as criminals.

Mr. HAYDAY: You treat these as worse than criminals.

Mr. ALPASS: I am not an old and an experienced Member of the House like the right hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted me, who has been here for many years, and he does not make it any easier for me to express what I feel. There is a large mass of unemployed concentrated in my constituency watching the issue of the Debate on this Clause with a great and vital interest. I have received a communication from the Unemployed Association of the City of Bristol asking me to do everything possible to influence my colleagues, though of course that will not be necessary, to reject this Amendment suggested by the other place. The implication which has been made is, in my opinion, a very gross libel upon the character of a large number of men who are really industrious in intention. I think hon. Members opposite would have a different point of view if they themselves had ever experienced a prolonged period of unemployment. I represent in this House men who have been unemployed for two, three, four or five years, and if I could show hon. Members opposite the letters which I have received from, and tell them of the interviews I have had with, men who have begged and beseeched me to use my influence to get them work, they would have a very different opinion as to what these men are trying to do. [Interruption.] This is only the second occasion on which I have addressed the House, and I think I am entitled to speak without being interrupted.
May I refer to one or two incidents to prove that these men, in the main, are doing everything humanly possible to obtain employment? A little while ago there was an announcement in our Press that 20 men were wanted by the Post Office in connection with the development of the telephone—putting down a fresh cable, I believe it was. On the morning
these 20 men were required 1,000 of the unemployed of my city presented themselves for the jobs. Some of them get there two hours before eight o'clock. Since I have been a Member of this House I have received from one of my constituents a letter describing experiences which I suggest are typical of what is taking place up and down the country. He walked 230 miles in search of work. In the letter he gave me the names of the places he had visited, and a long list of the places at which he had applied for employment. Eventually he presented himself at the City of Bristol Employment Exchange, and was "turned down" because he was not genuinely seeking work. The unemployed of my city, from whom I received a communication to-day, are very fearful indeed that unless this Amendment is rejected the old injustice will be continued, and we feel that the only way to safeguard their interests and secure justice for them is to reject the Amendment of another place and replace the Clause as it was. We ought to take no notice of this attempt to make it possible to reintroduce the old inquisitorial methods.
The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) said that if we rejected the Amendment we should be treating someone in another place with discourtesy. I want to suggest that the boot is on the other leg. I say that it is discourteous for persons in another place who, as the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) said, gave practically no consideration to this question, lightly to brush aside the results of the very serious and careful deliberations upon this Clause in this House by men who have had years and years of experience in the practical administration of these matters.

Sir B. PETO: I know that the hon. Member does not wish to misquote what I said. I said nothing about it being discourteous to another place to reject the Amendment. I said it was discourteous that we had had no explanation from the Government of the reasons why they object to this Amendment.

Mr. ALPASS: I think we had sufficient explanations in the long Debate which took place on the Clause when it was first incorporated in the Bill, and the discourtesy lies with another place in brushing aside the results of our deliberations. I sincerely hope that in the interests of
the unemployed, to whom we wish to do justice, there will be no hesitation on the part of this House in rejecting the Amendment which has been sent down to us.

Mr. DEVLIN: I intervene in this Debate not only because I am profoundly interested in the constitutional question that has arisen, but also because I feel deeply upon the matter which the House is called upon to consider this afternoon. An hon. Friend on the other side has made a very strong and, as he thinks, I am sure, a very eloquent defence of the right of the House of Lords to constitute itself a Chamber to revise the legislation of this House. We would differ very much as to the right of the House of Lords to interfere with the decision of the people, either in regard to great fundamental questions or matters of smaller importance such as this; but if there is one question on which the House of Lords have no right to try to override a carefully considered decision of this House, it is on a matter of this kind. I have studied the Division List in the House of Lords, and I find that 94 Members of that Assembly voted for the Amendment which has been sent down to this House as an alternative to the Clause in the Bill. In other words, the proposal is seriously put forward by the House of Lords that 94 Members of a hereditary Chamber, inexperienced in the vital affairs of life, without knowledge of the conditions of the people, and ignorant of the great evil with which this Bill proposes to grapple, have decided that they are better judges as to how this matter should be adjusted than 600 representatives elected by the masses of the people. That is really the proposition as it presents itself to me.
In the first place, I object altogether to an Assembly that has done so much evil in its history by thwarting the generous will of the people of this country in every great movement of magnanimity and love for freedom—which has made itself an agent of reaction and has obstructed the progress of all democratic ideals—being my master as a Member of this House. I object also because the House of Lords, by its experience, its knowledge, its sympathy, or by any of the things that should inspire a great assembly of that character, has no right to place its judgment against that of the
House of Commons. I heard some hon. Gentlemen opposite challenge the Government because they had not given any reasons for the non-acceptance of this Amendment. Why should the Government give reasons? If there is sufficient intelligence on the other side of the House to defend the new proposals put forward by the House of Lords, surely they do not expect the Government to repeat their defence of proposals which have been deliberately voted upon by the House of Commons. Therefore, I do not see any point in that argument. I do not see any point in the argument that the Government are showing cowardice or contempt—I take it to be the latter—because they do not attempt to defend what the House of Commons has decided in a constitutional fashion when it passed this Clause.
Let me now come to the merits of the question. I represent a great industrial community which is one of the largest in these islands. I am in constant touch with the unemployed, and I know the tragedy of unemployment as well as any hon. Members representing Manchester or Liverpool. I feel it more, because it comes closer to me, and I say that if ever a well-meant scheme—I understand that the scheme of Unemployment Grants Committee did not come from the Labour Government, but from the other side either as a Coalition Government or a Conservative Government—suffered from being destroyed in its operation it was this measure. The hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Alpass) told us of the countless men and women who came to him, and asked him to find them employment, after they had made constant efforts to secure employment for themselves. In a former Debate that took place not long ago, I heard Conservative Members representing industrial constituencies repeat the experience to which hon. Members on the Labour Benches have testified, and unless the Government, at that time, had taken drastic measures in the form of the Clause which has been inserted in the Bill to deal with the appalling treatment of the unemployed who were seeking and failed to secure work, I should have regarded the Government as absolutely worthless. I think the Government were wise, after having taken into
consideration the views which were expressed and declared by men of experience in all parts of the House, in dealing with this difficult problem by the method and through the machinery which will shortly become the law of the land. That is all I have to say in relation to this matter.
I would like to go a little further if I am in order. I still think, and most of us think, that what we are now doing is no solution of our industrial problem. There is not an hon. Member in any part of the House who does not feel that something greater must be done. This is a national necessity. It is no fault of the people that the industrial machinery has gone wrong. It is no fault of the people that they are faced with these difficulties. Most of those people fought for the glory of this Empire, and a great many of our people gave their lives for their country. Most of them believed that when the War was over they would come back to a country fit for heroes to live in. From what I know of Englishmen, I think they do not want to live so much as heroes as to live a humane and decent life. These people want work, and they do not want the unemployment grant. There is a spirit among the masses that they do not want doles, but they want work. I know that there are not many men, and very few women who if they could get work-would ever look for the dole.
Civic pride is not any special virtue of the rich. Civic and personal pride is to be found in the homes of the humblest people. I have proved all that. I belong to many charitable societies. I know the grim and constant efforts which these people make to hide their poverty. I belong to an organisation in my own city called the St. Vincent de Paul Society, which is a voluntary organisation. Although it is a highly noble organisation, the members would rather die than allow it to be known that they were accepting the funds of that society. That is the kind of spirit which prevails among the working classes, and it is a spirit which is not confined to any particular class. Therefore, I say that this problem will not be solved merely by giving unemployment allowances to people who are unemployed, but it will be done if this country and those who hold responsible positions will grapple with the great ques-
tion of industry. I am a very silent spectator of the proceedings of this House, and I have listened to the suggestions made to solve this problem. I sat all through the Debate which took place yesterday, and I listened to the weary platitudes about the old and ancient economic creeds. I watched the unpicturesque propagandists who call themselves crusaders—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that I cannot allow him to widen the scope of the Debate beyond the actual question before the House.

Mr. DEVLIN: Then I will come back to what I said before when I spoke in the House. I repeat that, if I were an Englishman and a responsible citizen of this country, I would again plead for a great united effort on the part of all sections in the country to try to restore the industries of the nation, and to build those industries up again and create new ones. Not long ago the Prime Minister suggested a great national peace conference. I do not know why, but it has not yet materialised. The Lord Privy-Seal has a colossal task to perform, and he is capable by his knowledge of the conditions of this country of doing something if any man can. I do hope that every man will co-operate and assist the right hon. Gentleman in his attempts to restore the industries of this country, a solution which would prevent the necessity for a discussion of this character.
This particular Clause has one peculiar attraction for me. Up to now the Employment Exchanges have been not only the machinery through which the people are paid the unemployment dole, but they have been a kind of inquisitorial tribunal. They form a great organisation, and to what better purpose could that organisation be put than that of looking for work for the people who have not got work. Would it not be better for those capable and efficient officials to devote themselves, in whatever ways they can, to trying to find out where work can be secured instead of continuing to be employed in the useless and unproductive work in which they are now engaged. If they would do that, I am sure they would satisfy hon. Members opposite, as well as those sitting on this slide of the House, because every man who found a job would relieve the State of whatever finan-
cial responsibility it has to bear in regard to making provision for him. For that reason, and for many other reasons, i shall vote for the rejection of this Amendment, and support the attitude which has been taken up by the Government.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the fact that I am desirous of calling attention to the problem which is before us from a rather different point of view from that which has been taken up by previous speakers. I do not profess to be an expert in matters dealing with unemployment, but long before I was a Member of this House it was brought pointedly to my attention that the administration of the Section in the existing Act was creating difficulties of a sort which I am certain its framers never intended, and never anticipated. I came to this House after the last General Election in the hope that I should see a change made in that Clause, and be able to take some small part in getting it amended. I was very pleased when I heard that an opportunity was to be afforded to me, and I watched the proceedings, in common with other hon. Members of this House, which culminated in the Clause which appeared in the Bill which received its Third Reading.
7.0 p.m.
The point which I want to make about the Government's proposal in the old Clause in the Bill is this. Some of us feel that a great deal is said about unemployment insurance which has the effect of indicating to the people at large that unemployment insurance and the payments made to people who are out of work under the Unemployment Insurance Acts are in some way derogatory to the people who receive those benefits. I am not one of the people who can assent to that proposition for a single instant, but there is this much to be said, that any Clause in any Act of Parliament which has the effect of rendering possible an increased criticism of that nature from minds, however ill-informed, is a proposal which in my respectful submission is one which ought to be guarded against. I desire to assent to almost every word that was spoken a few moments ago by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of the City and County of Bristol
(Mr. Alpass) which I have known intimately all my life. I believe that the vast, the great and the preponderating number of working people in this country are genuinely seeking work, genuinely desirous of work and desire work rather than payments from public funds. But anything which casts a doubt upon the genuine character of however small a number of recipients of unemployment benefit is, in my submission, something which is likely to react adversely on the opinion which people generally have of all the people who are receiving that benefit. That is the point I desire to emphasise and, speaking as an obscure and humble Member of this House, that is the point I desire to press upon those who sit upon the Front Bench opposite.
I have had the opportunity, during a life which has been spent in criticising elsewhere legislation which has been passed in this House, of examining into legislation and into the words which this House and the other House use in endeavouring to translate their intentions into law. I look at the Clause in the form in which it has come down from another place and, looking at that Clause, I cannot help feeling that, so far as a large number of the speeches to which I have had the advantage of listening from hon. Members on the other side of the House are concerned, they have not really appreciated what the Clause does. I do beg of them to think once again of the observations which were made by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) in which he pointed out something which I desire to emphasise, namely, that under the Clause which we are now debating, the new Clause put in by another place, the whole assumption is that every person who comes forward applying for unemployment benefit is in fact a person who is seeking work. I do not use the word "genuinely" because that no longer has any application and should have no application in this legislation. No proof of that fact is required of the applicant. It is assumed and it underlies his application. It is not until the insurance officer under the revised Clause has taken upon himself the burden of attempting to prove, in the language of the new Clause, that the claimant is not
endeavouring to obtain employment and he has proved it to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, not until that has been proved and found as a fact, can any question at all arise of depriving people of the benefit to which they are justly and properly entitled. I would say, in conclusion, as to some of the observations that I resent the suggestion that I am any party at any time, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of saving money to the Exchequer, badly as that is needed, in endeavouring to deprive people who are entitled to benefit from receiving it. The object of this Clause, as I read it and as it is clearly expressed, is that the onus should be put upon the insurance officer, and I cannot think that any of the thousands of people whom I meet who are unfortunately in receipt of unemployment benefit would desire to have it otherwise.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am sure I shall be voicing the feeling of the whole House when I congratulate the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken upon not merely a clear and lucid statement but upon a statement which has lifted the Debate on to a much higher level than it was before he rose. I should like to say that the position of the Government is very definitely that it can do no other than disagree with the Lords' Amendment. The only substantial point of criticism which has been raised against that course—because for the most part the Debate has been merely a wearisome repetition of what was thrashed out in a threadbare fashion before—is the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) which requires to be very clearly explained and demonstrated. The judgment of the Umpire was based on the words in the Act, the words "not genuinely seeking work," and the judgments which are contained in the four or five cases constantly quoted rested upon those words in the Act. When those judgments were considered by the Blanesburgh Committee, on which were represented some very able brains and which had a very able lawyer in the Chair, it was found impossible for us to find a form of words that would translate those judgments into an instruction to the Exchanges. We therefore asked the then Minister of Labour if he would try to find a statu-
tory test that could be applied, embodying the intentions, or embodying the general sense of the Umpire's decisions. The Department could not do it. They issued the Umpire's cases as a guide to the courts of referees, and, whether we liked it or not, we had to come to the conclusion that it was impossible to find words of that description.
I would point out to the hon. and learned Member and those who have taken this line that, as a matter of fact, there is no essential difference between the Amendment sent down from the other place and the words I originally proposed. It has been the considered opinion of this House that the words I originally proposed would fail, as the words put in in 1924 failed. There are three of us in this House now who are very definitely House of Commons Members, who in no circumstances under the law could ever go into the other place, and therefore I am peculiarly a House of Commons woman, and I hope the servant of this House. If ever there was a Clause put into a Bill which could be claimed to be a House of Commons Clause it is this Clause, and I would regard myself as being unfaithful to the mandate of this House if I did other than definitely disagree with the Lords' Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: While we are indebted to the Minister for her intervention in the Debate, I am certain it would have tended to clarify and even shorten our discussion if it had been possible earlier for the House to obtain guidance, as it is entitled to demand guidance, from its officers, the Members of the Government who sit upon the Front Government Bench. But the Minister has now replied, and she has replied in uncompromising terms that she can advise the House to do no other than to disagree with the Lords in their Amendment. She first paid a very just tribute to the hon. and learned Member for the Bridgwater Division (Mr. Croom-Johnson), not merely for the clarity of his statement, but for the fact that he had lifted the Debate on to a plane on which it had not run for some time previously. We have heard the Debate coming to accusations hurled from the other side of the House that the whole purpose of these words was to defeat and to persecute the unemployed and to save the taxpayer at
the expense of the unemployed. These accusations have been blown sky-high by the phrase of the Minister herself that, as far as she can see, the effect of these words is not dissimilar from the words she originally brought in in a Clause which, after months of consideration, she submitted to this House. We take it, then, that the hon. Members opposite should be justly ashamed of the accusations which they launched against Members on this side, which the Minister herself has now taken upon her own shoulders. Let us hear less of this loose abuse which in the mouths of hon. Members opposite so often passes for argument.
We have the hon. Lady's defence, which is a defence which must strike home to the heart of every Member of the House of Commons. She brings forward the defence that she is a House of Commons woman. It is, I think, the first time in history that phrase has been used, and I desire to register the historic occasion on which it has first been used in our Debates upon the Floor of this House. She states that she asks us to disagree with this Amendment on the ground that, after the consideration given to it by the House of Commons, it would be undesirable for us in this House to accept the proposals which were brought down from another place. On that, may I say that we have the Minister's own testimony, that the House of Lords, desiring to give this Chamber an opportunity of reconsidering its decision, has gone to great lengths of courtesy in finding a form of words which, as the Minister herself has said, embody very closely the proposals which she herself had in mind when she introduced the Bill into this House. It has done so, too, in a way that does not lay upon this Chamber the difficult task of being asked to reverse a decision to which it has previously come. Furthermore, the House of Lords has gone to the trouble of taking these words from the rules of a great trade union organisation and, when the accusations of imminent persecution are hurled against Members on this side of the House, we may justly say that they are equally entitled to be hurled against the officers and secretaries of those many working-class organisations who drew up and for many years have acted upon rules no harder and no more unjust than this rule
which it is proposed to incorporate in a Statute of this House.
Where did the suggestion come from originally that these rules should be incorporated in this Bill? It came from the Minister herself. We remember the Minister in the Debates waving a bundle of papers in her hand and saying, "If I could only incorporate the rules of trade unions I should have no trouble with 'genuinely seeking work' or anything else." When the other House takes the Minister at her word and incorporates such rules, at any rate it is entitled to have its proposals treated with courtesy and decency, and debated, and not simply hurled aside as the attempt of a handful of unelected persons to dictate to the mass of the elected representatives of the people.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Devlin), who, I regret to say, after making a vigorous attack, has gone away—because, no doubt, the arguments from the other side might have convinced him of the wrongness of the arguments which he brought forward—[An HON. MEMBER: "You are optimistic."] The open-mindedness of members of his race is well-known, and particularly of members from the North of Ireland, who have always been found to be peculiarly liable to have their minds swayed by argument. I can only say that it is a pity that the hon. Member, whom we hear too rarely in our Debates, after intervening, should have withdrawn the light of his presence from among us.
Let us consider the proposals which the other House has made, and let us consider them peculiarly in the light of the Debates in this House. We on this side of the House have been accused by Members below the Gangway and on the other side of not having brought our share to the collection of wisdom which the right hon. Lady desired to make when she was bringing forward this Clause 4. We rebut that accusation without the slightest difficulty. When Clause 4 was under discussion, on what text did we begin to discuss it? We began to discuss it on the statement of the right hon. Lady herself in introducing this Bill on the Second Beading. I will read the words of the right hon. Lady, for they are germane to the present discussion and
the discussion upon which we shall enter when we have disposed of this Amendment. She said:
I am fully prepared to consider drafting Amendments in Committee. I want to use the collective wisdom of the House to make this Sub-section completely watertight. If during the experimental year this Sub-section proves to be still open to criticism, opportunity to amend it will occur at the end of the year. Only experience can show whether this Sub-section, taken in conjunction with the work-finding activities of the Exchanges and the training, reconditioning and transfer facilities which we provide and which we hope to develop, will help us to avoid the twin evils of injustice to the claimant and imposition on the Unemployment Fund.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1929; col. 743, Vol. 232.]
That was the Minister's considered opinion, that only experience can show, and she asked for an experimental year in which to try this proposal, and offered voluntarily an opportunity to this House to amend it again in a year's time. Taking the Minister at her word, we introduced into our discussions on Clause 4. as our main Amendment, an Amendment stating that Clause 4 should run for a year. We were willing to admit—[An HON. MEMBER: "You are on the wrong Amendment!"] The hon. Member does not, perhaps, fully understand the Debates. He may not have read them recently. I would ask him to read them again, and to take it from me—because, after all, it was our Amendment and not his—that our Amendment applied to the Clause, and the Clause contains the Amendment. Our part of the collective wisdom which we brought; to the solution of this problem is, I submit, still the only sensible contribution, namely, that it is a matter of experiment. Let it be tried; let us revise the Bill again in a year's time, with the result of this experience present in our minds; and let us realise that we cannot in one bound reach finality on this matter.
We not only discussed it to the extent of some seven pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, but the Minister replied. She took part in the Debate and, more than that, she voted. And the Prime Minister and all the members of the Cabinet voted. The Secretary of State for War voted. But so little was the consideration that they gave to the Debate that the whole thing has entirely slipped from their memories. We said that the
proposals which were brought forward from our side of the House, as to the conditions of genuinely seeking work and the conditions under which benefit is to be drawn were difficult, and would have to be considered and revised in the light of other provisions in other Clauses of the Bill, the whole arrangements made in regard to transitory provisions, and the provisions where the whole expense of the benefit is borne by the Exchequer. I think that nobody in any quarter of the House will suggest that benefit should be drawn permanently by these beneficiaries under exactly the same conditions under which benefit is drawn by others who are receiving insurance for which they have paid, and not relief to which they have made no contribution. We brought forward these arguments; we reviewed the position of the benefit qualifications on many Clauses; and we claim without hesitation that we did make our contribution to the suggestions called for by the Minister. All that we complain of is, firstly, that the Minister took no notice of them whatever and, secondly, that she has forgotten about them when a further stage of the Debate arises. The proposal of the other House is a proposal which, even from the point of view of this House, is certainly worth considering.
I would call the further attention of hon. Members in all parts of the House to the fact that that proposal was not backed with the full weight of the Opposition representatives. The Noble Lord the Marquess of Salisbury spoke at a later stage in that Debate, but he thought that it was reasonable that it should be brought forward, and in the Debate he went so far as to say that it was brought forward with the idea of giving the Government the opportunity of reconsidering the decisions that they had already come to. We are considering here, not merely the conditions under which the unemployed shall draw benefit, but the conditions under which a levy of 7d. a week is to be made on the wages of 8,000,000 trade unionists, most of whom are never going to draw benefit. Is a levy of 7d. a week a mere fleabite on a man's wages' It is not. The question whether 1d., 2d., or 3d. shall be levied on a weekly wage is considered at great length in the trade union lodges, and, I am informed, is debated often with great acrimony.
Here is a levy of 7d., and the conditions under which people are to draw upon that levy are matters of concern, not merely from the unemployment point of view, but from the employment point of view. There are many more persons employed than there are unemployed; there are many more persons paying this levy than there are persons receiving benefit under it; and it is necessary for this House to look at the question as a whole.
Looking at the question as a whole, we see that the rules which were drawn up by the workmen's organisations themselves, with regard to the funds which they themselves have collected and created, form a useful precedent for examination by this House when it comes to legislate on the subject. The other House, with great good sense, asked that a White Paper should be laid; but, in spite of the fact that the Minister brandished these Papers before us in the Debates in November, and the other House asked for a White Paper on the 19th December, these extracts were not laid until the Bill was on the edge of passing from the other House altogether, and then it is claimed that the other House acted hastily and in a slapdash fashion. The blame, however, is upon the Government, which failed to produce a White Paper until nearly three months after the matter was originally raised in this House. It therefore does not lie in the mouth of the Government representatives to blame the other House for hasty legislation enacted rapidly, when the other House, having asked for information on the 19th December, did not receive it until the month of January was nearly at an end, and the Bill was within 24 hours of passing from that place altogether.
It is clear that the Government are asking that this Amendment should be rejected. They are, of course, within their rights in asking the House to do that. Hon. Members below the Gangway have indicated that they will support the Government in the proposal that this Amendment should be rejected. I would ask them to consider, not merely this Amendment, but the other Amendments. We have been told by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) that already, before the ink is dry upon this Clause, he has received complaints against it, and is beginning to have
doubts in his mind as to whether it is exactly right, and whether Amendments could not reasonably be made in it. Surely, all these things prove that our suggestion that this should be treated as an experimental matter, and considered after a short time in the light of experience, is a sound suggestion. That is the way in which we would attack this difficult problem, and not by a priori rules laid down with the idea that this is the last occasion on which the House will have to legislate on this difficult subject.
The other House made a worthy contribution to the Debates on this matter when it called for a White Paper, and obtained for the use of both Houses of Parliament the rules which the trade unions themselves had worked out to deal with this subject—[an HON. MEMBER: "Some of them!"]—which many of the unions have worked out to deal with this difficult subject. The White Paper deals both with those who do and with those who do not. It is a Government Paper and not a party publication, and it is a Paper well worthy of consideration in connection with legislation on this subject. The Government may carry their Motion to disagree with the Lords on this occasion, but, if they do, it will strengthen and enforce and buttress our argument on the next Amendment, which proposes that this should be a limited and not a permanent part of our legislation, and that only by a review at intervals is it possible for us to come to a permanent solution of this problem.

Mr. GRAY: I propose to vote against accepting the Amendment from the House of Lords. At the opening of this Debate, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) passed heavy criticism on the Government because they had bowed, apparently, to the views of private Members of this House. I want to make a protest on behalf of private Members of this House. I am a new Member, never having sat in the House before until the present Parliament. I, and probably a large number of other Members of the House, have only a very remote chance of occupying either the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench, and I am rather inclined to resent the
suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that, unless an Amendment emanates from the Department concerned and if it emanates from discussion on the part of private. Members of this House, it is not of so much value. If we, as private Members, oppose the Department and the Department in the end has given way to our opinion, I resent very strongly that that should be imputed as any sort of crime. I hope that will happen over and over again. We have a House in which the Government have not a majority at their command and they cannot press any sort of Measure that the Department likes through the House irrespective of what may be the opinion of private Members. The Government of to-day have to command some assent outside their own party, more or less the common consent of the House, if they are going to carry their Measures.
I have been intensely amused at the conversion of right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway and their enthusiasm for trade unions, but I do not follow their arguments. I am not a member of a trade union. I have considerable respect for them, but I do not admit that the decisions of a trade union have more value than the considered judgment of the House. I am not going to accept an Amendment because a trade union uses it as against an Amendment which has been fully discussed in the House, considered by many of us in private and then again considered and carried by the House. Are hon. Members above the Gangway converted to the principle that, because a thing is in the trade union regulations, it is, therefore, a good one? It may or may not be, but it is certainly no argument to my mind that it is a better regulation than a decision of the House.
I ask the House to reject the Amendment particularly because of what it is in itself, and that, perhaps, has not been as fully discussed as it might have been. Is there anything more difficult than to prove a negative? I do not mind what trade unions do. They have their own methods of working. When the House of Lords ask the House to put into a Bill that a Government would have to invite their officers to prove a negative before this individual is to be debarred from benefit, and the Clause was going to be adminis-
tered by Judges of the High Court, with counsel and all the rest of it, we could afford to let the Amendment to go through, and there would probably not be a solitary individual whose benefit would ever be challenged under that rule, because under the ordinary law of the land you cannot call upon a man to convict himself. How, then, is an insurance officer going to prove to a court of referees that a man has not tried to obtain benefit? If the officer could prove that the man had stopped in bed day and night for a week, and was in good health, he might be able to prove that he was not obtaining benefit, but it would be rather difficult to prove that, if the man had done it. He would have to keep some representative knocking at the door every hour to see if the man had got up or not. if you apply this Clause as it has come down from the House of Lords to the ordinary conditions of law and evidence, you could not deal with a single case by that rule. The only thing that could possibly happen is that it would be administered by courts which are not accustomed to the rules of law and evidence and, if it was asserted that the man was not obtaining benefit, you could probably issue a warning that it might be used in evidence against him and he would probably again be submitted to the inquisition which arose under the old Act.

The Clause that was hammered out in debate is for the purpose which right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House desire, and is infinitely more effective and practicable than the Clause now suggested by the House of Lords because, under it, the Employment Exchange officials can build up a code of practice. It is no use for a man who knows the shipbuilding conditions at Liverpool, or some other big port, talking about the conditions in my own town. I know the conditions of my own town, but you cannot expect me to understand the conditions pertaining in Manchester. The only people who really know what a man has to do who wants to get work are the Employment Exchange officials in the areas concerned. If the Employment Exchange officials do not know what a man ought to do to get a job, why should you expect the man to know himself? If they do know, it is simple for them to build up their code of practice for all kinds of workmen and require them to carry it out. I do not
blame the officials of the Employment Exchanges for what has happened under the genuinely seeking work Clause. The officials of the Department who administer the Insurance Act are just as desirous of doing what is right and just by the unemployed as Members of the House, or the Labour representatives who will have a share in administering the law that we have passed.

It was the Labour Ministry itself who first introduced the genuinely-seeking-work Clause. Until that time you never required any Clause of this nature at all, and you had no difficulty, because the amount of work available was more or less commensurate with the number of men seeking work, and as long as those conditions pertained, you could administer your Unemployment Insurance Act simply and easily, sooner or later, and sooner rather than later, finding a job for the man who was out of work and testing him by that method. But if we have the conditions that exist to-day, no matter what a man does, and however he tries to get work, and however much he wants it, for thousands of our workers in the great centres there is no job available and it is really hypocrisy and folly for hon. Members on this side of the House to suggest that they are not desirous of striking large numbers of men off the register for benefit who cannot get work, and they seek to apply to them a condition which may enable them to eliminate large numbers of these men.

You cannot possibly find a more effective method than that which you have put in the Bill, which gives to the Exchange officials power to require men to do whatever they think necessary, so long as it is reasonable. If this Clause is administered under the ordinary processes of the Law, with proper protection, you probably would not get a solitary conviction under it. You will immediately revert to the position that a man, having been challenged has to satisfy the Court of Referees that he is trying to obtain work, and you are up against the whole difficulty that has led to all these discussions. You are not entitled to take from men while they are in work a contribution and then, when they are out of work, and you can find no work for them, eliminate them, because you
think they have not sought it, from the benefit to which they have contributed and to which they are entitled. I hope we shall reject the Clause.

Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 133.

Division No. 123.]
AYES.
17.40 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Leach, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Freeman, Peter
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lees, J.


Alpass, J. H.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Ammon, Charles George
Gibbins, Joseph
Lindley, Fred W.


Angell, Norman.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Arnott, John
Gill, T. H.
Logan, David Gilbert


Aske, Sir Robert
Gillett, George M.
Longbottom, A. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Glassey, A. E.
Longden, F.


Ayles, Walter
Gossling, A. G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gould, F.
Lowth, Thomas


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William


Barnes, Alfred John
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Batey, Joseph
Gray, Milner
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McElwee, A.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
McEntee, V. L.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McKinlay, A.


Benson, G.
Groves, Thomas E.
MacLaren, Andrew


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bowen, J. W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mansfield, W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harbison, T. J.
March, S.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Harbord, A.
Marcus, M.


Bromfield, William
Hardie, George D.
Markham, S. F.


Bromley, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Marley, J.


Brooke, W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mathers, George


Brothers, M.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Matters, L. W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Haycock, A. W.
Maxton, James


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Melville, Sir James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayes, John Henry
Messer, Fred


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Millar, J. D.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, J. E.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Milner, J.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Montague, Frederick


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Herriotts, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cameron, A. G.
Hirst, W, (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Cape, Thomas
Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Horrabin, J. F.
Mort, D. L.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Chater, Daniel
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Church, Major A. G.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Clarke, J. S.
Isaacs, George
Murnin, Hugh


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Naylor, T. E.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnston, Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oldfield, J. R.


Daggar, George
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Dallas, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Dalton, Hugh
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Palin, John Henry.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kelly, W. T.
Paling, Wilfrid


Devlin, Joseph
Kennedy, Thomas
Palmer, E. T.


Dickson, T.
Kinley, J.
Perry, S. F.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dukes, C.
Lang, Gordon
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Duncan, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Ede, James Chuter
Lathan, G.
Pole, Major D. G.


Edmunds, J. E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Potts, John S.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Pybus, Percy John


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lawrence, Susan
Quibell, D. K.


Egan, W. H.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawson, John James
Raynes, W. R.


Foot, Isaac
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Richards, R.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Walker, J.


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wallace, H. W.


Ritson, J.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Watkins, F. C.


Romeril, H. G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Snell, Harry
Wellock, Wilfred


Rowson, Guy
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sorensen, R.
West, F. R.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Westwood, Joseph


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Stephen, Campbell
White, H. G.


Sandham, E.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sawyer, G. F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Scott, James
Strauss, G. R.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Scrymgeour, E.
Sullivan, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Scurr, John
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sherwood, G. H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Shield, George William
Toole, Joseph
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tout, W. J.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Short, Alfred (Wodnesbury)
Townend, A. E.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Simmons, C. J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles



Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Turner, B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sitch, Charles H.
Vaughan, D. J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Viant, S. P.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Albery, Irving James
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Atholl, Duchess of
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Salmon, Major I.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beaumont, M. W.
Hanbury, C.
Savery, S. S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Berry, Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Haslam, Henry C.
Skelton, A. N.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bracken, B.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Howard-Bury. Colonel C. K.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Buchan, John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. I.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Iveagh, Countess of
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Carver, Major W. H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Thomson, Sir F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Christie, J. A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Train, J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey. Gainsbro)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mitchell-Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Mond, Hon. Henry
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Withers, Sir John James


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dugdale, Capt, T. L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Womersley, W. J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Neill, Sir H.



Elliot, Major Walter E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon. Barnstaple)
George Penny.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Power, Sir John Cecil



Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Repeal of fourth Statutory condition.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 16, at the end, insert:

"until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."

Mr. SPEAKER: I would again point out to the House -that this Amendment raises the question of Privilege.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will take note of the fact that the intention of this Amendment is to limit the operation of the Bill to something like one year. It means that the other House, in dealing with legislation with which it disagrees, is undertaking to place a time limit upon that legislation, so that whatever may be the virtue of this Bill and of the Clauses to which they object, whatever may be the virtues of the House of Commons and whatever may be the sum total of the wisdom and experience of the House of Commons, it is to be taken for granted that there is to fee a time limit upon legislation with which the other House is not in agreement. I believe that that fact has only to be stated for this House to disagree with the line taken by the other House. I have no doubt whatever that it will be the wish of this House to reject the Amendment which limits the operation of this Bill.
Even from the practical point of view, the time limit is badly devised. The Unemployment Insurance Act of 1927 substituted new machinery for scrutinising claims, and this new machinery took considerable time to come into play and did not come fully into operation until the end of 1928. I think that those who are familiar with the working of the Act of 1927 will agree that it was really not until the early part of 1929 that the work had actually been overcome and we were in a position to see the effect of that Act in actual practice. Therefore, from the point of view of practical experience and of getting a real test of the operation of the Measure which is now before the House, it would not be possible to obtain that experience and test in the time specified in this Amendment.
I should like to point out that the time limit was discussed in this House during the passage of the Bill. I do not know whether it is by a coincidence or not that something like the same time limit suggested by the Members of the other House was suggested by hon. Members opposite. At that time, the subject was fully discussed, and it appears to the Government that, in view of the rejection of the proposal at the time when the Bill was being discussed in its
various stages, and in view of its impracticability from the point of view of a test, the House should not allow a time limit to be put upon this legislation by another House, merely because it is legislation which has been passed by a Labour Administration. Therefore, I ask the House to disagree with this Amendment.

Major GLYN: As I had the honour to move the Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has referred the first time that this matter was discussed in this House, I should like to say at once that I do not think the hon. Gentleman should assume that because we proposed something which is sensible in this House and the Second Chamber also adopts the same sensible view there has been any collusion. Obviously, if you both agree about a sensible thing there is collusion in that you are both wise men.

Mr. LAWSON: I said probably a coincidence.

Major GLYN: Anyway, I wish that there were more fortunate, coincidences in legislation. The real point is, that we on this side are not anxious to stick to a definite period of a year, but we believe that the principle of fixing a time limit is of tremendous value in order to enable the Minister of Labour for the time being to review again the circumstances and to fill in the gaps. I have listened to this Debate to-day, and in every part of the House there are faint echoes that while hon. Members may not agree with the actual wording they think that there may be a chaotic condition. Even the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) in his speech, to which I listened with great care, said: "Everybody is aware that the whole thing has now got into a chaotic condition." If things are in a chaotic condition, surely it is as well that there should be a statutory period fixed for this legislation for the benefit of the Minister and her or his advisers with a view to seeing what gap should be stopped. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, I am sure, did not mean for a moment what he said concerning the attitude of the other House.
8.0 p.m.
I do not think that the other House, in sending down these Amendments came
to their decision merely because it is legislation which has been proposed by the hon. Gentleman's party. The business of the Second Chamber is to review legislation and send it back to this House, to give us another chance of discussing the matter. I beg the Government to consider, once again, whether a time limit is not a useful thing to have. When the Bill was introduced, the Minister of Labour said that she would like to fix a limit, because she wanted, sometime or other, she did not say when, to review the whole of this question with the Poor Law and the Insurance Fund, and with some sort of new legislation, perhaps, which would enable those people who have fallen out of benefit and cannot be called insured contributors to have some form of assistance which, while it would not run the Fund into bankruptcy, would be quite distinct from what we call the Poor Law as we know it to-day.
The discussions on this Bill in this House and in another place have been extremely useful in drawing the attention of the country to the real need of all parties to recognise that we are going through an industrial revolution. How we are going to deal with it is a matter for the good sense of Parliament. if we can get that good sense, and perhaps that Council of State to which the Prime Minister has referred. There appeared in the "Times" newspaper a short time ago an amazingly interesting article, founded upon the facts brought out in a recent Government paper, showing the proportions of people who were unemployed. We are far too much inclined to look upon the 1,200,000 persons out of work as if they were a solid block. We all know that they are not. What was really interesting was the statement that there were 400,000 out of the total number of unemployed who might be called the hard core that resists every attempt to bring in legislation for the relief of that number. Let us hope that, somehow or other, all parties will try to seize the opportunity, when it occurs, to give special treatment to those 400,000 who are, perhaps, unemployable. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) who has so ably conducted the opposition to this Bill, has described the three situations into
which people can be placed as being Heaven, purgatory as the middle stage, and the other location for the third stage. We must recognise that there are these three stages.
There is not a single hon. Member who has any knowledge of industrial conditions who will not recognise three things: (1) that the trade unions will suffer as a result of this Bill, because there will be less inducement for people to join trade unions from the benefit point of view; (2) there will be a feeling of tremendous resentment on the part of workers who are employed, if there is a loophole—I think there are very few, but there are some—whereby persons who are workshy can obtain benefit, and (3) that the employers have their share of blame; but that is not a view held altogether on this side of the House. I believe that the Employment Exchanges have been suffering under a tremendous handicap because the officials, who have done admirable work, very often have not known that jobs to which they have sent men have been filled. The Employment Exchanges should have the support of the employers, and, I hope, of the trade unions, in order that they may be made aware of what vacancies there are, what vacancies have been filled, and what have not been filled. There is nothing so depressing or bad for a worker than to be parading round the district in a heart-breaking search for work.
One hon. Member below the Gangway made some very astounding statements regarding the line we have taken. They were statements that ought never to have been made. Such statements have never been made by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who has always been fair in his criticism and just in his comments, but the other hon. Member accused us of something which we must nail down to the Table of this House, or to the Records of the House, namely, that in our opposition to this Clause, we were so degraded that we were looking for excuses to prevent men who were genuinely seeking work from obtaining the benefits to which they were entitled. That is an absolutely blatant untruth. It is a statement which ought not to have been made. It imputes motives to us which we bitterly resent. It is possible to conduct these Debates without throwing about these insinuations. I feel it
most acutely, because what we want to do is to see that there is justice and fair play for all. If there is abuse on the part of employers or trade union officials or the Employment Exchange officials, or anybody else, let us say so, and prove the case, but do not let us insinuate motives which are non-existent.
If we look back on the legislation which has been passed since the War, I am afraid that we cannot be very proud of our success. I believe that we shall never be prosperous in this country until politicians and the House of Commons begin to take account of what industry requires and not what we think industry should have. We are a great industrial country, and out of the depression from which we are suffering, two wonderful things will emerge. I think we have seen the last of misunderstandings between employers and employed. The next thing that we have to see is that, if we get rid of that misunderstanding, there shall be nothing brought into politics which shall be destructive of the initiative of the people engaged in trade and industry. There is an obligation on all of us to see that the Insurance Fund is made a real Insurance Fund. The Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary are both great believers in the friendly society movement, of which they have had much experience. In a small way I have had experience of the friendly society movement for a good many years.
In regard to this Bill, while hon. Members opposite are 6eeing the horrors of the present industrial depression, some of us are looking a little bit ahead, and we wish to be quite sure that the character of the people and the children is not going to be upset. I do not think that it will be upset in many cases, because I believe the character of our people will be proof even against this thing, but I do think that if we could have a time limit, say, 18 months, if the Government will not accept one year, it would give an opportunity for making Parliament again face up to facts which we have so often ignored. It is no use the House of Commons running away from stark reality, and it is no use anyone pretending that we do not know of the appalling misery of a great many unemployed people. Those of us who have had to do with the British Legion
know that the condition of the fund of the Legion is due to no other cause than having to pay out money to unemployed ex-service men who belong to the Legion, and who cannot get employment.
What have we done to get employment for people? We have piled up taxation, which has done no good to industry. We ought to ask ourselves what is our share of the blame for the people who are not able to get work. I think the blame lies very much more it the doors of politicians than at the doors of employers of labour.

Mr. J. JONES: Is not the hon. and gallant Member a politician?

Major GLYN: I am. I stand fully condemned, along with the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). I do not pretend to be in any different position from the hon. Member. I think we are both guilty. Not only in this Parliament but in previous Parliaments hon. Members have acted in accordance with' what we thought might be very good politically, but which has been proved unsound, industrially. Are we going to succeed in legislation of this character? I do believe that within a period of 18 months or two years there will be a change in the industrial outlook. We cannot go on as we are now. The Lord Privy Seal, in all his efforts to obtain extra employment, bas found that the only way to cure the canker is to get employment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I think the hon. Member is getting away from the subject of the proposed Amendment.

Major GLYN: I was trying to point out the importance of dealing with the question of unemployment insurance as proposed in the Government's Bill, within a limited period, and I hope that I may be allowed to say that if we are going to cure unemployment we can only do it by improving the chances of people being employed.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment limits the period.

Major GLYN: It is a limited period, and if we can get a limited period, as suggested by the Lords Amendment, the whole matter would come up for review within the period laid down. If the
period suggested does not satisfy the Government, then if we could have a limit of 18 months or two years it would be better than no limit. I think that the industrial situation will by that time have taken on a different aspect, and the limit will enable this House and the Government of the day to review the whole situation. I will not trespass further upon the time of the House, except to say that I am certain that if this Amendment cannot be accepted by the Government, there will be before 18 months have passed such a demand from the country to have the Bill reviewed that the Government of the day will be forced to take action.
I am certain that trade unions and friendly societies will recognise in this Bill, after experience, that there is a germ of something which may perhaps develop into the triple organisation that we on this side referred to during the discussion of the Bill. I mean by that, that we should segregate once and for all the true Insurance Fund from the extended benefit system. There should be some method, which would have to be worked out, whereby persons who, through no fault of their own, have been unable to obtain employment, and cannot pay their contributions, should be looked after during the middle stage, and that there should be a third stage, namely, ordinary Poor Law administration. It is a slur on the very word "insurance" to pretend that those persons who have for a long period been outside the scope of paying their contributions, should be brought in. I have always contradicted persons when they have talked about people being on the dole. It has been a too frequent expression on the lips of people.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member is now getting far away from the Amendment.

Major GLYN: This slur about people being on the dole would not obtain if we could divide this Bill into the three parts to which I have referred.

Mr. E. BROWN: The field opened by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) is a very interesting one. I have myself, although I regret to say unsupported by the hon. and gallant Member, made many speeches
on the subject, and it is therefore not necessary for me to put myself into conflict with the Chair by repeating those speeches, which would be out of order. I will only refer him to the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT for some powerful arguments in favour of the course he has proposed. His other proposal was also most interesting. The hon. and gallant Member is always ingenuous, and always able. The suggestion in favour of limiting this Bill to 12 months in order to save the characters of the children by a time limit, is too attractive to be followed without deep consideration. It must be obvious to every hon. Member that you cannot put an end to the transitional period inside 12 months. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) was optimistic enough to believe that by next year we may have got down to about 8 per cent. unemployment, but I do not think his optimism exists in any part of the House, and that alone is sufficient to nullify the proposal to limit the transitional period to 12 months.
What is the position under this proposal? You have men who have had three different codes of rules to satisfy in the years since 1924. We are now bringing in a new test, an objective test, for the first time, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment because I think this objective test should be fairly tried. The Government are considering the whole realm of insurance, and therefore I think this test should be fairly worked out, and that the experience based on the working of the test through the Employment Exchanges should be considered in connection with the whole insurance scheme. It is obvious that the Amendment will not give time enough for that to be done. I do not share the opinions which some hon. Members have expressed, and I think that the test which has been taken out of the Bill in another place may prove to be more drastic in its nature than they appear to think. I am entirely against the Amendment.

Mr. J. JONES: It is marvellous to sit on these benches, as a representative of what may be called the unskilled labour classes, and listen to the marvellous exhibition of knowledge of unemployment that some hon. Members opposite have displayed. Having been out of work for generations they know all about it, and
they are anxious that a test should be applied for the benefit of other people. I should be quite prepared to accept the test that a man out of work should resume work within 18 months, and if he could show no reasons why he had not found it that he should be sent to penal servitude for the rest of his life. We on these benches would escape, but hon. Members opposite would find a difficulty in keeping their freedom. It is always the working classes to whom these tests are to be applied. National insurance was sup posed to be an act whereby every industrial worker should pay into it, and also his employer, but as soon as the fund gets into difficulties, as soon as it is discovered that it is not able to meet its responsibilities—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this is a limiting Amendment and he must confine himself to it.

Mr. JONES: I am only pointing out that the attempt to limit the benefit which may accrue to the unemployed man or woman is simply an attempt to see that the ordinary unemployed working man does not get something for nothing. It is the old argument over and over again. I want to suggest quite frankly that if hon. Members opposite are put to the same test as a man who is now receiving unemployment benefit they would not stand the examination. When did they genuinely seek work? They do not ask for it unless there is a profit behind it. I do not understand the peculiarities of this Bill or the Amendments; I have never studied them. I have been compelled by economic circumstances to look for work; some hon. Members opposite have never tried to work, and do not want to find it. When the Insurance Act came into operation, I, like many others, thought that once I became part and parcel of that scheme that I became legally entitled to receive benefit. That is what they thought. What do we find?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I know it is difficult to confine one's remarks to the Amendment before the House but the hon. Member must do it. This is an Amendment providing that the question of benefits shall come up for review in April, 1931.

Mr. JONES: I hope it will come to an end at the earliest possible date. That will be the date when hon. Members opposite find work. Then the people I represent will be able to draw their benefit for years to come. I have never known hon. Members opposite look for a decent job except when it is a case of exploiting other people's labour. I hope the Amendment will not be carried and that the Bill will remain until the Tory party are found to be genuinely seeking employment.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones; has, in his usual dignified manner, cast aspersions on hon. Members on this side of the House. I would not dream of following him except to say that it is curious that only a day or two ago I was approached by a member of the Government who told me that I was not looking very well and overworked, that it was time I went away; and, would I go away? I am different to the hon. Member for Silvertown. I try to get some idea of the Bill which is being considered, which I presume is the purpose for which we are paid £400 a year. Of course, this is really a matter of a time limit. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) referred to ray right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) as having said that in a year or two's time we might get back to the normal in unemployment. The whole question of normality is bound up with the limit of time. My right hon. Friend never said that that might happen under a Government such as the country is afflicted with at the present time. No one would prophesy any such thing.
We are really in a transitory period. We have already been told that there is a wave of opinion throughout the country that in some way or other we should separate the block, not of unemployables, but of men who would give anything to be employed, from the people who can no longer draw their benefit because of some temporary disability or other. Opinion as to this block of workers, in the coal mines and one or two other industries, is very fluctuating. This Bill has been brought in for the purposes of remedying a particular trouble which arose, not through the fault of the Conservative party and
not entirely through the fault of the Minister of Labour, but because of an anomaly in the old Bill which I should not be in order in discussing. We are now trying to find a way out of the difficulty. Everyone admits that we want a practical insurance scheme. Personally, over and over again, amongst groups of my own supporters, I have argued that people should not call the benefit a "dole." I have said that on public platforms.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: But that does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As far as the limitation of the Bill is concerned I was trying to use an illustration to show why the Bill should be limited. One of the reasons why a time limit is necessary is that there was an uncertainty in the Bill when it left this House, and that uncertainty may cause misunderstanding outside the House. I think I am entitled to say that anything which might cause disturbance or misunderstanding outside this House is a matter to which I can refer? If the Bill is a thoroughly sound Bill in every respect, at the end of 12 or 15 months it will be possible to carry it on with practically the unanimous consent of the House. The more convinced the supporters of the Government are that the Bill is a perfect Bill the more they ought to come round to our point of view. The Minister of Labour has complained rather bitterly that she has had to answer questions over and over again. Suppose that at the end of 12 months she was able to come here and say, "All my answers have been right and have been confirmed in every way." It is a pity that there is a growing feeling that in the Bill as it left this House there was something wroug. No one can state what will be the effect of Clause 4 on the younger generation. At the end of 12 months we shall know the effect.
There are those who believe that there is an intention to exploit the younger generation. At the end of 12 months we shall have some evidence as to whether the younger generation is benefiting or otherwise. The Minister herself is the best evidence of all of the necessity for a time limit. She came here will all the courage of the Department at the back of her, with all the courage of a Member who is almost a West-countrywoman.
She came down to this House with her opinions. We naturally thought that all those opinions were carefully thought out. We had not proceeded very far before those opinions began to waver and to weaken. Finally, she was overborne and the whole Bill was drastically redrafted.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the women of the West Country are as loquacious as he himself and, if so, is that the reason why Drake left Devonshire for the Spanish Main?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I and others of my party have been accused to-night of not taking sufficient part in these discussions and I thought that, just on this one occasion, I might be allowed to raise my voice in this matter. I have listened very often to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead) speaking on all sorts of questions and sometimes I have wished for a time limit in connection with other things as well as this Bill. After the hon. Member's interruption I have to find my way back to the points on which I was encouraged by the other side to speak. I was referring to the extraordinary agility with which the Minister changed on certain points in connection with this Bill.
In trying to fix a time limit for a Bill of this sort one has to consider certain points pretty closely, and, obviously, one is influenced very largely by the opinions of those who are considered to know most about these matters. When an expert who has used every argument in connection with the Bill until it is almost threadbare—when anyone with an understanding of the question such as the hon. Lady possesses, suddenly changes her mind, as she did not so very long ago, we must realise that the time may come again very soon when she will wish to change her mind again in reference to this Bill. After all, she changed her mind on the previous occasion in the course of only a week or two, and how are we to know that, at the end of about six weeks' time, she may not be feeling bitter agony at having taken the chief part in passing this Bill at all? How are we to know that we shall not be doing her a great kindness by presuming that she may have reasons for changing her mind again?
If, within the next few months, as must almost inevitably happen, the Government dies a natural death, a death of absolute ignominy like most of its acts, and we get another Government with an entirely different point of view, what will happen? I would not be justified on this occasion in going into the alternatives, but it is quite conceivable, as an hon. Member has already pointed out, that some of the provisions in this Bill might be administered very harshly. If that were the case, I can conceive the hon. Lady's position in the country being very different from what it is now. She would be out of office and would be powerless for the time being to make these things right, and yet she would be the person on whom all the faults of the Bill would be fastened. I suggest that it would be only just and kind to the hon. Lady if we had a strictly limited provision of this sort. I am delighted to see the Attorney-General in his place once again. He arrives just at the right time. No one knows better than he the definite value of, occasionally, having a time limit because there are limits to all sorts of things as well as this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I want to know from the Attorney-General—

Mr. J. JONES: Why? You already know everything about it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, that is not the case. The hon. Member is the only person who thinks that of himself. I am sure that many of the Clauses of this Bill, in the course of the next 12 months, will produce a considerable crop of legal difficulties. Cases of all sorts and kinds will arise and arbitrators and umpires will be giving decisions on many different points. May I ask the Attorney-General to consider this aspect of the matter? A great number of decisions given under this Measure will have to be taken into account, and there is the possibility of vast changes being made over the whole of the insurance system. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am told, has a very fluctuating mind and has an extraordinary facility for getting round different questions in different ways. May I ask him if, with his extraordinary mind and ability, he can say that this Bill is perfect? He is under a great disadvantage. He has not had, like
the hon. Lady, a certain amount of Parliamentary experience. He has not had, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, a very considerable amount of Parliamentary experience. He has not even had great experience, if I may say so with due respect, of those who are his own allies at the present time. I would not like it to be thought in the course of the next month that he had not really considered this matter deeply. All I am appealing for is that the Government should be given another chance. I, personally, think that the Government have made a hopeless mess of this Bill; that they have been divided upon it, and that many members of the Government would like to see the Bill reorganised. I, personally, hold that the majority of the supporters of the Government believe as fundamentally as I do that the workers of this country desire to get work and would like to have a change. For that reason, I ask the Members of this House to do everything in their power to limit the time of the Bill, if only to save the Government from the discredit of their own actions.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: It is important that the Bill should be limited—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not a question of limiting the Bill, but of limiting the fourth statutory condition.

Captain HUDSON: I think this condition should be limited to the time mentioned in the Amendment. We on this side are putting this forward, but at the same time I think that everybody will have noticed that this opinion as to the limitation of the Bill has been held both on the Government side and on this side. The Minister herself, on one of the first occasions on which she spoke in the House on the fourth statutory condition, said herself that it should be temporary. That quotation was made from the Front Bench about an hour ago, and I understand that the same line was taken in another place, that it was a temporary Bill and that therefore there was no necessity to go so deeply into it as if the Bill was to be a permanent solution. Therefore, everyone who has taken an interest in this Bill and in previous Bills has said again and again in this House and elsewhere that this is not a per-
manent solution of the problem, and that sooner or later the whole system must be altered.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Clause we are discussing deals with the fourth statutory condition for the receipt of benefit.

Captain HUDSON: I was saying that in this House and outside again and again on this particular Clause it has been said that the whole system must be altered. I do not mean the whole system of insurance, but the whole system as to genuinely seeking work.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: These are statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit.

Captain HUDSON: Although the actual term "genuinely seeking work" has been taken away, the Clause means that the applicant must do certain things, and that is one of the reasons why this Amendment has been put in. I think I have sat throughout the whole of the Debates here, and I have read those in another place, and on each occasion the speakers have said that this is a temporary Measure, because the whole thing—what I called just now the whole system—is fundamentally wrong. Therefore I am pleading that this Amendment should be accepted. Another reason is because of the obscurity. I am certain there is obscurity in the wording as we have it at the present moment. We have only to see what has taken place in the Debates here and elsewhere to find that what we on this side think will happen is objected to by the other side, and that the very same words are taken by the two sides to mean something entirely different.

Mr. WALLHEAD: There is no obscurity about the date.

Captain HUDSON: But the limiting date is put in for the obvious reason that they do not believe that this will work, and therefore they want a limiting date at which the system must be overhauled.

Mr. WALLHEAD: If the object of the date is perfectly obvious, how on earth can the hon. and gallant Member argue that it is obscure?

Captain HUDSON: The Bill is so obscure, as I say, and it is so bad, that
the people who put this date in, and we who ask for the date to stay in, do not believe that the Bill will work. Therefore, we put a definite time limit at the end of which the whole thing must be overhauled. I hope the House will seriously consider whether it would not be a very good thing to put this date in and to make a drastic overhaul necessary at a definite date.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I do not intend to stand long between the House and the Division which is so obviously desired. At the same time, I feel that I am bound not to give a silent vote on an important occasion such as this. I have so frequently sat silent under the taunts of hon. Members opposite as to why I did not get up and speak in reply to their arguments that I may remind them of the proverb "Even a worm will turn," and if they find that I at last get up in response to their taunts, they have no one to blame but themselves. I am not one of those people who believe that because an Amendment comes down from another place it must necessarily be good or necessarily be bad. I am one of those who believe in judging every Amendment upon its own merits, and I should like to explain to the House, and indirectly to my constituency, why it is nay intention to support this particular Amendment. This is a very narrow point, and the point it raises is whether or not
Condition (iv) in Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act (which prescribes the statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit) shall cease to have effect,
and the Amendment suggests that it shall only cease to have effect until the 1st April, 1981. Why am I supporting that this condition ought to come to an end on that date? I do not think even the most pessimistic of hon. Members opposite can suggest that the state of affairs in industry in this country is a permanent one. We have heard a great dealt about percentages of unemployment, but I do not believe in dealing with percentages. Let us have plain figures. I do not think the figure of 1,300,000 or 1,400,000 unemployed is one that is likely to last for more than a few months. I therefore suggest that the statutory conditions for the receipt of
benefit should again apply after a comparatively abort period, and the period which this Amendment proposes, namely, 16 months, seems to me to be a sufficient length of time in which to decide whether or not these statutory conditions should again take effect. I think this particular period is a reasonable time in which to allow circumstances to work themselves out, and all that time we shall be able to see where we are and whether, without inflicting hardship on recipients of benefit, we can by that time reasonably afford to put these statutory conditions once more in motion. That is my reason for supporting the Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: There are one or two reasons why this Amendment should not be rejected. The case for it is a very strong one. The Parliamentary Secretary founded his case for the rejection of this Amendment, in the first place, on the ground that it is a strange thing that the other House should have attacked this particular piece of legislation, and he said that it was perhaps due to the fact that it was Labour legislation. If I find him a precedent connected with a Bill which I brought forward, I hope that that will give him some evidence to disabuse him of that idea, because I am sure that he would not suggest that I deliberately worked here to have a Bill passed, and then ran along the Lobby to the other place to arrange for Amendments to be moved limiting it. In the Poor Law Bill of 1927, which our Government introduced, there were certain provisions which were a subject of comment in this House and we managed to have them passed, and the Bill extended until 1930. In the other place a Motion was moved to limit it to 31st December, 1928, that is to say, to give the provisions only a year's run. That is an almost exact precedent for the case which we have at present under consideration. The Bill was of a somewhat experimental nature, and we thought it right to accept the Lords' Amendment, for the very reason that it would force upon the Government of the day the necessity of reviewing the provisions at a later period.

Mr. DUNCAN: Did they do it in the De-rating Bill?

Major ELLIOT: The De-rating Bill has so far commended itself to the Government that it has been put into operation by them. The Liberal party on a previous occasion, when they were actually supporting the Labour Government of the day, and when the Labour Government could not remain in office unless they were actively supported by the Liberal vote, moved and carried a limiting provision in a Bill which had certainly much more chance of remaining as a permanent feature of the legislation of this country than the present Bill, which in a great proportion of its provisions is avowedly a temporary Bill, and has so been described in both Houses of Parliament and in the words of the Statute. Mr. Masterman pointed on that occasion:
The Minister in charge has declared definitely that the idea is to carry on temporarily unemployment relief with a view to some large reconsideration of the whole question.
9.0 p.m.
The same statement has been made with regard to this Bill by the right hon. Lady, who said that a reconsideration of the whole question is under way. She said, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), that she had an important Cabinet Committee considering the whole question of insurance, and that Committee would report within the period of 12 months. For that reason, she was limiting the Bill in important provisions which deal with the transitional period. It may be said that that does not apply to what is intended to be the main substance of the Bill, but we come to a further statement by the right hon. Lady, which is nothing less than a Parliamentary pledge. That is an important matter, and not a matter to be lightly broken. The right hon. Lady did not give it in any casual way, but with full definiteness in her Second Reading speech; that speech must have been considered at considerable length, for in such a speech the Minister makes a declaration of policy which governs the whole consideration of the Measure. I should be glad to have the attention of the right hon. Lady, because this is a Parliamentary pledge, and I am claiming that as such it must be honoured. She used these words:
If during the experimental year this Sub-section proves to be still open to criticism "—
that is Sub-section (2) of Clause 4—
opportunity to amend it will occur at the end of the year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21at November, 1929; col. 743, Vol. 232.]
I claim that that is language that could scarcely be more definite.

Miss BONDFIELD: Obviously, the experimental year refers to the transitional period, for which I have to put a date in the Bill.

Major ELLIOT: I ask the right hon. Lady to consult the OFFICIAL REPORT. She will see that it is not possible for her to begin her sentence by referring to "Clause 4 (2)," and go on referring to Clause 4 (2), and then ride off on the fact that her sentence referred to the transitional period. It refers to Clause 4 (2), and can refer to nothing else. It is, if I may say so, scarcely worthy of the lucid and vigorous mind of the right hon. Lady that she should suggest that an opportunity to review Sub-section (2) of Clause 4, will come when she is dealing with the Clause which contains the transitory provisions.

Miss BONDFIELD: It is perfectly clear, whatever my grammar may have been, that this provision will operate in relation to the transitional group, as well as to those who are in the insured field. It is obvious from the context that that has relation to the transitional group.

Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Lady is surely not asking us to believe that, when she used these very definite words, she was dealing with the transitory provisions. She deals with those provisions at a much later stage in her speech at some length.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Clause 4 deals with the qualifications for the receipt of benefit.

Major ELLIOT: It is within the knowledge of all of us that Clause 4 and Clause 5, that is to say, the insertion of the new provision and the repeal of the old, hung together, and was stated by the Prime Minister to hang together; and, when the right hon. Lady moved out the original Clause 4, she moved to withdraw Clause 5, because it was the repeal provision, and because the two were so
woven together, that they could not be discussed separately. We are now dealing with a proposal—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is quite possible to amend the qualification for benefit at the proper time without changing the statutory conditions.

Major ELLIOT: Here it is suggested that there should be the permanent repeal of the Fourth Statutory Condition. The Amendment proposes its temporary repeal, and suggests that it is dealing with the conditions with which we are now dealing—not only the conditions under which benefit shall be received under the transitory Clause but under the whole provisions of the Bill. I submit it is perfectly germane for us to point out that the Minister said the opportunity for the review of those conditions would arise at the end of the year, and that under the Bill as it is now before us there is no opportunity for any such review. On the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister disarmed a certain amount of criticism by specifically stating that the opportunity for review would occur at the end of the year. The Minister went further, because in defending her proposals she said:
I am convinced that the substitution of this new condition for the old condition will remove the hardships, the injustices and the temptation inherent in the old procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1929; col. 741, Vol. 232.]
Within 10 days, or less, under pressure from her back benches, or, let us say, under the explanations from her back benches, she had resolved that the new condition would not remove the injustices, the hardships and the temptation inherent in the old procedure, and therefore it is clear that the matter is one which it is worth while for this House to keep under review. The Minister brought forward a definite proposal and said she was convinced that it would remove injustices. Within a few days she was not convinced that it would remove the injustices of the present position, and she offered us, without any hesitation or qualification, a review of her first proposal within twelve months; and surely it is only fair that she should offer it also in regard to the second proposal, which is of a still more experimental and temporary kind. The proposals of the Bill as a whole are novel; but the ease for the review of the whole
of the proposals of the Bill arises on a further Amendment from another place, and therefore I shall not attempt to go into them at the moment. But I would say that the case seems to me to be so clear that I cannot understand the reluctance of the right hon. Lady to accede to it.
The experimental nature, the provisional nature, of the Bill applies to one of its main features, that is, the transitional period. Some review of a main feature, therefore, must take place within twelve months, by the Statute which she herself brought forward. The quasi permanent features of the Bill, the conditions under which benefit is to be drawn not merely by those in receipt of transitional benefit, but by those in receipt of permanent benefit, have been remodelled and redrafted while the Bill was passing through the House. The right hon. Lady herself said an opportunity for reviewing them would occur before the end of the year. The other place made an Amendment to her Bill not from any prejudice against Labour legislation, as I have shown by the fact that a precedent exists for it in the action which they took with regard to a Bill for which I myself was partly responsible. The other place put in an Amendment that the matter should be reviewed within twelve months because they knew the right hon. Lady herself had said that a Cabinet Committee was reviewing the whole matter and would report within that time. Hon. Members below the Gangway have said, apparently with child-like faith, that there is no doubt that they will review the whole question in that time. I have not the same faith in Cabinet Committees reporting so promptly, and legislation being so quickly framed upon their decisions, and I desire to make it a statutory condition that the matter shall be reviewed, and the Cabinet Committee thus have a stimulus to come to some decision.
No grave dislocation of the legislation of the country need be feared. If the Cabinet have not been able to come to a decision it is always open to them to continue the proposals in this Bill by means of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. All that this Amendment does is to say that the last word has not been said on the subject, and that the period
for review which is proposed for the transitory provisions should be the period for review for all provisions and in particular should be the period for review of those qualifications for the receipt of benefit on which so much discussion has already gone on. For all these reasons we hope it will be possible for the right hon. Lady to accede to our request, and we say that the Lords Amendment should be accepted by this House.

Captain EDEN: I share with, I think, the whole House a measure of amazement at the Government's attitude towards this Amendment. All who listened attentively to the right hon. Lady's speech on the Second Reading of the Bill were certainly of the impression that there could be no conceivable objection in principle to a timely review of the statutory conditions, and it is news to us to hear the right hon Lady saying to-night that such a review, while it may be considered, cannot be included in the Bill. If the Government are prepared to consider a revision of the statutory conditions, as we understood they were prepared at the time of the Second Reading, there can be no conceivable objection to such a provision being included in the Bill. A mere profession of willingness cannot be accepted as a substitute for actual inclusion in the Bill. The Government are not wholly immune in this respect. They have changed their mind. It is a very good thing that governments should change their mind from time to time, but, in view of that change of mind having come about within a few weeks, it is not surprising that we should ask that these statutory provisions should again be available for revision by the House.
This is a most important matter. It is impossible here and now to discuss the question of the time limit for the Bill as a whole, which conies up later, and is, in my view, the most important of all these Amendments; but, even so, I think the House has a right to feel some surprise at the attitude of the Government. We should have felt that surprise apart from the right hon. Lady s speech on the Second Reading, and I think we have a right to ask that what she herself wanted should now be included within the limits of the Bill. I would remind her that the Attorney-General's professions on this
subject were very definite on one occasion and equally definite in antithesis on the next. We might almost say that in the case of the Attorney-General his genius lies in an infinite capacity for making change. May it not be the case that by this time next year that genius will require some further exercise, and it will be deplorable if this Bill makes it impossible for him to indulge it. The Opposition are not unreasonable in asking that the right hon. Lady, for whose professions we have the greatest respect, to whose professions we have lent all credit, and in whose assurances we have placed implicit faith, should allow us to back our credulity by placing within the ambit of the Bill what we believed to be and what she has not yet denied, were her in-tentions on the Second Reading. That is not an unreasonable condition, and I feel that we on this side of the House should press for it firmly.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I hope we shall have an answer to the question which has been put to the Minister of Labour. I will put the case again in two or three sentences, because I think we are entitled to have some reply. I have already asked a question to which I was assured the right hon. Lady would give an answer, but up to the present we have not had any answer at all. A specific question has been put with regard to a specific statement which the Minister of Labour made during the debate on the Second Reading. It is quite clear that the creation of the new condition and the abolition of the old condition of "genuinely seeking work" are two opposite sides of the same thing, and they are absolutely interdependent. With regard to the new condition, which carries with it Clause 6, we have a definite, a specific statement from the Minister of Labour which was made in the Second Reading debate, and I will read that statement once again. The Minister of Labour said:
Clause 4 (2) is so important that I am very desirous to have no doubt as to its precise meaning. I frankly confess that this has not been an easy Clause to draft, and for this reason I am fully prepared to consider drafting Amendments in Committee. I want to use the collective wisdom of the House to make this Subsection completely watertight. If during the experimental year this Sub-section proves to be still open to criticism, opportunity to amend it will occur at the end
of the year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1929; col. 743, Vol. 232.]
Now the Minister in an intervention states that what she was referring to was the transitional conditions. That could not be so. The speech was carefully prepared. The right hon. Lady referred to Clause 4, Sub-section (2). She was dealing with something which was perfectly-clear, and she made this explicit statement:
If during the experimental year this Sub-section proves to be still open to criticism, an opportunity to amend it will occur at the end of the year.
I press this point, and I think we are entitled to have a specific explanation. I think the whole of the change which is now put forward is a disastrous one, and will need to be amended at the end of the year. I must back up the statement which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and I ask the right hon. Lady to give an explanation of what she meant by the undertaking which has been read out.

Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot help admiring the ingenuity of hon. Members opposite in regard to this point. The fact is that I was referring to an experimental year, and it was the experiment of having a direct Treasury grant to deal with the persons who were not contributing to the Insurance Fund. It is a fact that for the first time I have separated those people who did not contribute to the Insurance Fund, and I have placed them in a separate category which I assure the House was an experiment, and I said it was an experiment. I have made financial provision for 12 months for that experiment, and it has no relation whatever to any other part of the Bill. Whatever ingenuity may be displayed by hon. Members for the purpose of this Debate, that is what I meant.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not wish to make any imputation on the Minister, but the point we are raising is not merely the coinage of some ingenuity on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) or myself, but we want her to explain the meaning of the words which she used in her speech on the Second Reading. The right hon. Lady now says that she referred to an experimental year which was merely intended to apply to
the transitory Clauses. I would like to point out to the Minister of Labour that whatever happens to the transitional conditions at the end of the year that does not necessarily mean giving an opportunity for amending this Sub-section, and I challenge the right hon. Lady to prove that it does. I want the House to understand that it is not merely a matter of ingenuity on our part.

Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of Order. I would like to ask is it not somewhat unusual, even by leave of the House, for a Member to make such a long speech in which he is merely repeating his original statements?

Captain CROOKSHANK: How does the Minister of Labour explain away her statement that this Sub-section would he liable to review?

Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of Order. May I point out that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have not replied to the point which I have just put to you?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking by leave of the House.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has only just sat down, and here is another one ready to jump up.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet been called upon.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I did not mean to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I thought he had finished his speech, and if he is still in possession I will not continue my remarks. I would like to know how the right hon. Lady explains away the statement which the Paymaster-General, Lord Arnold, made in another place, and whether the Noble Lord was speaking the mind of the Government at the time. The Noble Lord definitely stated that this Bill was

not a permanent Measure, and that it was merely one to meet a special state of things. Will the right hon. Lady explain that statement? Lord Arnold was making a statement on this Bill; that was the explanation which he gave on behalf of the Government, and the Noble Lord definitely stated in another place that this was not a permanent Measure. I cannot see how the Minister of Labour finds it possible to resist the Amendment which we are now discussing.

Major ELLIOT: We have not had any answer from the right hon. Lady.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Lady has addressed the House.

Major ELLIOT: It is true I can speak again only, by leave of the House [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then I beg to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) to make another speech? He has just made one speech, and now he rises to make another. How is that in order? It is treating the House with contempt.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he cannot move that Motion.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I do so formally so as to put the matter in order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 124.

Division No. 124.]
AYES.
[9.27 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Benson, G.
Buchanan, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Burgees, F. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Angell, Norman
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Buxton, C. H. (York. W. R. Elland)


Arnott, John
Bowen, J. W.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Caine, Derwent Hall-


Attlee, Clement Richard
Broad, Francis Alfred
Cameron, A. G.


Ayles, Walter
Bromfield, William
Cape, Thomas


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bromley, J.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brooke, W.
Charleton, H. C.


Batey, Joseph
Brothers, M.
Church, Major A. S.


Clarke, J. S.
Kinley, J.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lang, Gordon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Romeril, H. G.


Cove, William G.
Lathan, G.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Daggar, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rowson, Guy


Dallas, George
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Sandham, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dickson, T.
Leach, W.
Scott, James


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Scrymgeour, E.


Dukes, C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scurr, John


Duncan, Charles
Lees, J.
Sexton, James


Ede, James Chuter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lindley, Fred W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Egan, W. H.
Longden, F.
Shield, George William


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Foot, Isaac
Lowth, Thomas
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lunn, William
Simmons, C. J.


Freeman, Peter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McElwee, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gibbins, Joseph
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gill, T. H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Gillett, George M.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Glassey, A. E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gossling, A. G.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Snell, Harry


Gould, F.
Mansfield, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marcus, M.
Sorensen, R.


Gray, Milner
Markham, S. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Marley, J.
Stephen, Campbell


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mathers, George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Matters, L. W.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James
Strauss, G. R.


Groves, Thomas E.
Melville, Sir James
Sullivan, J.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Messer, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Millar, J. D.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mills, J. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Milner, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Montague, Frederick
Toole, Joseph


Harbison, T. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tout, W. J.


Harbord, A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Townend, A. E.


Hardie, George D.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Turner, B.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.
Vaughan, D. J.


Haycock, A. W.
Motley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Viant, S. P.


Hayday, Arthur
Motley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Walker, J.


Hayes, John Henry
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Murnin, Hugh
Wallhead, Richard C.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Watkins, F. C.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Herriotts, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley)
West, F. R.


Hoffman, p. C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Westwood, Joseph


Horrabin, J. F.
Palin, John Henry.
White, H. G.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, Wilfrid
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palmer, E. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hutchison, Maj. Gen. Sir R.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Isaacs, George
Perry, S. F.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Johnston, Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson, C. R. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pybus, Percy John
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Raynes, W. R.



Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kennedy, Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. A. Barnes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon


Albery, Irving James
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Balniel, Lord
Bird, Ernest Roy


Atholl, Duchess of
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Atkinson, C.
Beaumont, M. W.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.




Boyce, H. L.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bracken, B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buchan, John
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Salmon, Major I.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Cattle Stewart, Earl of
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Christie, J. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Skelton, A. N.


Colville, Major D. J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Long, Major Eric
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lymington, Viscount
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, Sir F.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Train, J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ganzoni, Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Sir George
Withers, Sir John James


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Power, Sir John Cecil
Womersley, W. J.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsbotham, H.



Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Rathbone, Eleanor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Captain Margesson and Captain


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Wallace.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Examination and determination of claims.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 24, leave out from the word "Act," to the word "shall," in line 25.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I quite understand that these words are left out here for purely drafting reasons, having regard to the changes in the procedure of the courts of referees, but ought they not to go in in any other part of the Clause?

Miss BONDFIELD: No; the reason for them has disappeared, because during the Report stage an Amendment was made whereby the paragraph providing for periodical review disappeared.

CLAUSE 16.—(Further amendment of s. 14 (2) of 17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 30.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 17, at the end, insert:
Provided that no person shall be entitled to receive benefit under the said Sub-section
(2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, as extended by the Unemployment Insurance (Transitional Provisions Amendment) Act, 1929, or by the present Act, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that this Amendment, again, raises a question of Privilege.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think that, after the speech of the right hon. Lady on the last Amendment, she should give us some reason why she moves to disagree with this Amendment, in view of the fact that she said that she understood her Second Reading speech, which has been the subject of frequent quotation this afternoon, to apply to the transitional provisions. There will be 100,000 people who will fall out of insurance, for whom, for the first time in history, as the right hon. Lady explained, she is making provision whereby they are carried, not by the Insurance Fund, but wholly by the taxpayer. The effect of her speech was that she wanted to make it quite clear that that was an experiment, and it is, if I may say so, the one experiment
which we on this side of the House welcome. In view, however, of the right hon. Lady's statement that it is an experiment, this is clearly a case for putting a definite time limit into the Bill.
It seems to me to be perfectly obvious that to attempt to carry people who are practically uninsured, or have fallen out of insurance, wholly by the State, and yet pay them the relief through the machinery of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, is bound to break down, because, as we have pointed out, it continues the confusion between relief and insurance which has been the root of all the trouble of successive Unemployment Insurance Acts. When you come to deal with those people who are no longer insurable risks, who have been unemployed in some cases for two whole years, the standard rates of benefit do not and cannot necessarily apply as an alleviation in those cases. In cases of relief as apart from insurance, the question that has to be decided is how much relief is needed, having regard to the needs of these individuals, and each individual case has to be settled on its merits. You clog the Employment Exchanges in their work of finding work and all the rest of it by turning them into relieving authorities, and we say that, welcome as is this provision making a clear distinction between insurance and relief, the experiment of attempting to administer pure relief through the machinery of the Employment Exchanges is bound to fail within the year, and that it will be the duty of the Government, as soon as their Committee on the Social Services has reported, to produce in Parliament a Bill to rectify the fundamental evil into which we have got in a succession of Bills dealing with this subject.
Therefore, if ever there were a case, there is a case all along the line for making the whole of this Bill experimental, and ensuring that in the coming autumn the Government will review all these provisions. On the Minister's own showing, there is a clear ease that this year this experiment of relief wholly paid by the taxpayer, paid at a flat rate of benefit which is utterly unscientific and utterly inadequate for dealing with cases of particular distress, should be the subject of new legislation at the earliest possible moment. We on this side of the House certainly think that the Lords are perfectly right in making clear to the
country, and endeavouring to get inserted into an Act of Parliament, the fact that the Minister was right in her Second Reading speech when she said that this new feature should be experimental. We want to make its experimental nature statutory, and to make it clear that the House should not regard this as a permanently satisfactory solution of one of the most difficult sides of this problem, which the Government have begun to tackle but which they have not seen through to the end.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Might I ask the right hon. Lady to give us an explanation of this? This is one of the most extraordinary Amendments of all. It was moved in another place without an explanation by a Noble Lord speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, it was agreed to by the other House without a speech from the Government Bench and it is now moved that we should not agree with it again without a single word of explanation.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment, like most of the others on this page, is consequential on the second Amendment on page 3. We do not deal with Lords' Amendments in the same way that we deal with Amendments to an ordinary Bill in Committee. If it were so, we should not debate anything. We should deal with them as consequential on the main question, which was discussed and decided on a previous Amendment that a time limit should not be included in the Bill as put in by the House of Lords. I cannot allow discussions on these various Amendments as it would only be a repetition.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We had a ruling from Mr. Deputy-Speaker when a previous Amendment on quite a small point was under discussion, on page 5, line 16. That Amendment was analogous to the present one in the sense that it was a question of limitation, but on a small point which, as you said, is really consequential to the main question of limitation which is dealt with in the Amendment at the end. On that occasion Mr. Deputy-Speaker did not allow my hon. Friends to discuss the main question of limitation generally, but ruled that they must strictly confine themselves to the precise point with regard to that Clause, and my hon. Friends
endeavoured to do so. We will bow to your ruling at once, but the course that has been taken has placed us in some difficulty.

Mr. SPEAKER: That really arises from the fact I have just explained, that in considering these Amendments we do not deal with them in the same way as we should if a Bill was being considered in Committee in this House. No doubt there are different points that arise on these various Amendments, but they are all affected by the main question and are really all consequential on it.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I naturally bow to your ruling, Sir, as I hope every Member of the House would, but I hope to extract an assurance from the right hon. Lady that, when we come to the Amendment on which these are consequential, she will at least favour the House with her views on the subject in rather a fuller form that she has done so far.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 127.

Division No. 125.]
AYES.
[9.48 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Ede, James Chuter
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edmunds, J. E.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kelly, W. T.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Egan, W. H.
Kennedy, Thomas


Alpass, J. H.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kinley, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Foot, Isaac
Kirkwood, D.


Angell, Norman.
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lang, Gordon


Arnott, John
Freeman, Peter
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Aske, Sir Robert
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lathan, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Ayles, Walter
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Button)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawrence, Susan


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Barnes, Alfred John
Gill, T. H.
Lawson, John James


Batey, Joseph
Gillett, George M.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Glassey, A. E.
Leach, W.


Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)
Gossling, A. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Bennett, William (Batteries, South)
Gould, F.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Benson, G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lees, J.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gray, Milner
Lindley, Fred W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Bowen, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Longbottom, A. W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Griffiths, T.(Monmouth, Pontypool)
Longden, F.


Bromfield, William
Groves, Thomas E.
Lovat-Fraser, J A.


Bromley, J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lowth, Thomas


Brooke, W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normantont)
Lunn, William


Brothers, M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McElwee, A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Harbison, T. J.
McEntee, V. L.


Buchanan, G.
Harbord, A.
McKinlay, A.


Burgess, F. G.
Hardie, George D.
MacLaren, Andrew


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Buxton, C R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Haycock, A. W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hayday, Arthur
Mansfield, W.


Cameron, A. G.
Hayes, John Henry
March, S.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marcus, M.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Markham, S. F.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marley, J.


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George


Clarke, J. S.
Herriotts, J.
Matters, L. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Maxton, James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Melville, Sir James


Campton, Joseph
Hoffman, P. C.
Millar, J. D.


Cove, William G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mills, J. E.


Daggar, George
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, J.


Dallas, George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Montague, Frederick


Dalton, Hugh
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Isaacs, George
Morris, Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, W.(Glamorgan, Neath)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Johnston, Thomas
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Devlin, Joseph
Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Mort, D. L.


Dickson, T.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Sraethwick)


Dukes, C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Duncan, Charles
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Murnin, Hugh.




Nathan, Major H. L.


Naylor, T. E.
Scott, James
Toole, Joseph


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Scurr, John
Tout, W. J.


Noel Baker, p. J.
Sexton, James
Townend, A. E.


Oldfield, J. R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Trevelyan, RL Hon. Sir Charles


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Turner, B.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Vaughan, D. J.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Sherwood, G. H.
Viant, S. P.


Palin, John Henry.
Shield, George William
Walker, J.


Paling, Wilfrid
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wallace, H. W.


Palmer, E. T.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watkins, F. C.


Perry, S. F.
Simmons, C. J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Sitch, Charles H.
West, F. R.


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Westwood, Joseph


Potts, John S.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
White, H. G.


Pybus, Percy John
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Ton (Pontefract)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Snell, Harry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Raynes, W. R.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Richards, R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sorensen, R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Ritson, J.
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Romeril, H. G.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Strauss, G. R.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Rowson, Guy
Sullivan, J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sutton, J. E.



Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charles


Sandham, E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Edwards.


Sawyer, G. F.
Tinker, John Joseph



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Albery, Irving James
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Atholl, Duchess of
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Atkinson, C.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut. Colonel E. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Salmon, Major I.


Balniel, Lord
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Savery, S. S.


Beaumont, M. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Haslam, Henry C.
Skelton, A. N.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Boyce, H. L.
Kurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Bracken, B.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke Naw'gton)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Carver, Major W. H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Christie, J. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, Sir F.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Titchfield, Major the Marques of


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Leighton, Major S. E. P.
Train, J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lymington, Viscount
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, Sydney R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mond, Hon. Henry
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Withers, Sir John James


Dugdale, Capt. T. L
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Eden, Captain Anthony
Muirhead, A. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Elliot, Major Waiter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Everard, W. Lindsay
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Capt. Margesson and Sir George


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Power, Sir John Cecil
Penny.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Ramsbotham, H.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 42, at the end, insert "Until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment again raises the question of Privilege.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 125.

CLAUSE 17.—(Minor Amendments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 20, leave out "be made" and insert "have effect."

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises the question of Privilege.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is consequential; therefore, it is not necessary to make any explanation.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 125.

Division No. 126.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gill, T. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Gillett, George M.
Lowth, Thomas


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Glassey, A. E.
Lunn, William


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gossling, A. G.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Alpass, J. H.
Gould, F.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McElwee, A.


Angell, Norman.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McEntee, V. L.


Arnott, John
Gray, Milner
McKinlay, A.


Aske, Sir Robert
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
MacLaren, Andrew


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Ayles, Walter
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Groves, Thomas E.
Mansfield, W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Grundy, Thomas W.
March, S.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Marcus, M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Markham, S. F.


Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardin, Central)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marley, J.


Bennett, William (Batteries, South)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mathers, George


Benson, G.
Harbison, T. J.
Matters, L. W.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Harbord, A.
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hardie, George D.
Melville, Sir James


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Messer, Fred


Bowen, J. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Millar, J. D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Haycock, A. W.
Mills, J. E.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hayday, Arthur
Milner, J.


Bromfield, William
Hayes, John Henry
Montague, Frederick


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morgan Dr. H. B.


Brooke, W.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Herriotts, J.
Mort, D. L.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Burgess, F. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Horrabin, J. F.
Murnin, Hugh


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Naylor, T. E.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cameron, A. G.
Isaacs, George
Noel Baker, P. J.


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Oldfield, J. R.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Johnston, Thomas
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Clarke, J. S.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Palin, John Henry


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Paling, Wilfrid


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palmer, E. T.


Compton, Joseph
Jawitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cove, William G.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Perry, S. F.


Daggar, George
Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dallas, George
Kennedy, Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Dalton, Hugh
Kinley, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Kirkwood, D.
Pole, Major D. G.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Potts, John S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lang, Gordon
Pybus, Percy John


Devlin, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Quibell, D. J. K.


Dickson, T.
Lathan, G.
Ramsay, T. S Wilson


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dukes, C.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Raynes, W. R.


Duncan, Charles
Lawrence, Susan
Richards, R.


Ede, James Chuter
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawson, John James
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ritson, J.


Egan, W. H.
Leach, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. D. (W. Bromwich)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Romeril, H. G.


Foot, Isaac
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy


Freeman, Peter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lindley, Fred W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
Sandham, E.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F


Gibbins, Joseph
Longden, F.
Scott, James


Scurr, John
Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Sexton, Jams
Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
West, F. R.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Westwood, Joseph


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Strauss, G. R.
White, H. G.


Sherwood, G. H.
Sullivan, J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Shield, George William
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shillaker, J. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Simmons, C. J.
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Toole, Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Tout, W. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sitch, Charles H.
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Winterton, G. E,(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Turner, B.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Vaughan, D. J.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Viant, S. P.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, w. R. (Norwich)
Walker, J.



Snell, Harry
Wallace, H. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wallhead, Richard C.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charles


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Watkins, F. C.
Edwards.


Sorensen, R.
Wellock, Wilfred



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Albery, Irving James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudtey & Otley)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Atholl, Duchess of
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Atkinson, C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Balniel, Lord
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Salmon, Major I.


Beaumont, M. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Haslam, Henry C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Skelton, A. N.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Boyce, H. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bracken, B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Iveagh, Countess of
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Croom, Johnson, R. P.
Long, Major Erie
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lymington, Viscount
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Mond, Hon. Henry
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Muirhead, A. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Everard, W. Lindsay
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Captain Margesson and Sir George




Penny.

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
[10.9 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Melville, Sir James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Messer, Fred


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Millar, J. D.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Groves, Thomas E.
Mills, J. E.


Alpass, J. H.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick


Angell, Norman.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morgan Dr. H. B.


Arnott, John
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Aske, Sir Robert
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harbison, T. J.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Ayles, Walter
Harbord, A.
Mort, D. L.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Mosley, Lady c. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Harris, Percy A.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Barnes, Alfred John
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Muggeridge, H. T.


Batey, Joseph
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Murnin, Hugh


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Haycock, A. W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)
Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hayes, John Henry
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Benson, G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oldfield, J. R.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Herriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Birkett, W. Norman
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Bowen, J. W.
Hoffman, P. C.
Palin, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Horrabin, J. F.
Palmer, E. T.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bromfield, William
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Perry, S. F.


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Maj. Gen. Sir R.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brooke, W.
Isaacs, George
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Brothers, M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Johnston, Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Potts, John S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pybus, Percy John


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Raynes, W. R.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Richards, R.


Caine, Derwent Hall
Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cameron, A. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cape, Thomas
Kinley, J.
Ritson, J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Charleton, H. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Romeril, H. G.


Church, Major A. G.
Lang, Gordon
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Clarke, J. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Compton, Joseph
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Samuel, H. W (Swansea, West)


Cove, William G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sandham, E.


Daggar, George
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dallas, George
Lawson, John James
Scurr, John


Dalton, Hugh
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sexton, James


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Leach, W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Devlin, Joseph
Lees, J.
Sherwood, G. H.


Dickson, T.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shield, George William


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lindley, Fred W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dukes, C.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shillaker, J. F.


Duncan, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ede, James Chuter
Longbottom, A. W.
Simmons, C. I.


Edmunds, J. E.
Longden, F.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Egan, W. H.
Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, H. B Lees (Keighley)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Freeman, Peter
McElwee, A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Snell, Harry


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
McKinlay, A.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacLaren, Andrew
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sorensen, R.


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'E6trange (N'thampton)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gill, T. H.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stephen, Campbell


Gillett, George M.
Mansfield, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Glassey, A. E.
March, S.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gossling, A. G.
Marcus, M.
Strauss, G. R.


Gould, F.
Markham, S. F.
Sullivan, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marley, J.
Sutton, J. E.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mathers, George
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gray, Milner
Matters, L. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Maxton, James
Thurtle, Ernest




Tinker, John Joseph
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Toote, Joseph
Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Tout, W. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Townend, A. E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
West, F. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Turner, B.
Westwood, Joseph
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Vaughan, D. J.
White, H. G.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Walker, J.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Wallace, H. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.



Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. T. Henderson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Albery, Irving James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Balniel, Lord
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Salmon, Major I.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beaumont, M. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Savery, S. S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Haslam, Henry C.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hurd, Percy A
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Boyce, H. L.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Christie, J. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomson, Sir F.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lymington, Viscount
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, Sydney R.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Muirhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Everard, W. Lindsay
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Fison, F. G. Clavering
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Margesson and Captain


Ganzoni, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wallace.

Lards Amendment: In page 12, line 22, at the end, insert—
until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment also raises the question of Privilege.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Lawson.]

The House divided: Ayes, 276: Noes, 124.

Cameron, A. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kennedy, Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Charleton, H. C.
Kinley, J.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Church, Major A. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Clarke, J. S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwick)


Cluse, W. S.
Lang, Gordon
Romeril, H. G.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Compton, Joseph
Lathan, G.
Rowson, Guy


Cove, William G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dallas, George
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sandham, E.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lawson, John James
Sawyer, G. F.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scurr, John


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leach, W.
Sexton, James


Devlin, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dickson, T.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lees, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dukes, C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sherwood, G. H.


Duncan, Charles
Lindley, Fred W.
Shield, George William


Ede, James Chuter
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Edmunds, J. E.
Logan, David Gilbert
Shillaker, J. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Longbottom, A. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Egan, W. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Foot, Isaac
Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Freeman, Peter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McElwee, A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, V. L.
Snell, Harry


Gibbins, Joseph
McKinlay, A.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gill, T. H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sorensen, R.


Glassey, A. E.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gossling, A. G.
Mansfield, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Gould, F.
March, S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marcus, M.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, G. R.


Gray, Milner
Marley, J.
Sullivan, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mathers, George
Sutton, J. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Maxton, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Melville, Sir James
Thurtle, Ernest


Groves, Thomas E.
Messer, Fred
Tillett, Ben


Grundy, Thomas W.
Millar, J. D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mills, J. E.
Toole, Joseph


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, J.
Tout, W. J.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Montague, Frederick
Townend, A. E.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Harbison, T. J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Turner, B.


Harbord, A.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Vaughan, D. J.


Hardie, George D.
Mort, D. L.
Viant, S. P.


Harris, Percy A.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Walker, J.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wallace, H. W.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh
Watkins, F. C.


Hayday, Arthur
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hayes, John Henry
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.
West, F. R.


Herriotts, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
Westwood, Joseph


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
White, H. G.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Btackley)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Horrabin, J. F.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, David (Swansea. East)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Perry, S. F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Isaacs, George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Johnston, Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Pole, Major D. G.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Potts, John S.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pybus, Percy John
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson



Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Raynes, W. R.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.


Albery, Irving James
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Atkinson, C.




Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Balniel, Lord
Granted, Edward C. (City of London)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Beaumont, M. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Salmon, Major I.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Haslam, Henry C.
Savery, S. S.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Boyce, H. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bracken, B.
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smithers, Waldron


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Carver, Major w. H.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cattle Stewart, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Christie, J. A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Thomson, Sir F.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Long, Major Eric
Train, J.


Dairymple-White, Lt. Col. Sir Godfey
Lymington, Viscount
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wells, Sydney R.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Everard, W. Lindsay
Penny, Sir George
Womersley, W. J.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Ganzoni, Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Ramsbotham, H.
Captain Margesson and Captain


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Sir George Bowyer.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

CLAUSE 19.—(Transitory provisions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 2, leave out "five and".

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.'
This and the next two Amendments—in line 2, after the word "six" insert "and eight and nine"; and in line 2, leave out "twelve" and insert "sixteen"—are drafting Amendments due to the re-numbering of Clauses, with the exception of "and nine," which is explained in this way. The House will see that on the top of page 13 occur the words:
to be determined as if Sections four, five and six,
and so on. Since then one of them has been altered, and I wish to add to that provision "and nine," because —

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. May I ask if on "five and" we may discuss "and nine," because I am interested in "five and"?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Lady was referring to the three Amend-
ments for the convenience of the House, as they all more or less hang together.

Miss BONDFIELD: It is necessary for the table that Clause 9 should be brought in under the transitory provisions to prevent a congestion of the work, and that is why the words "and nine" are brought in. I take it that we have to take three votes, and I therefore move to agree with this first Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 2, after the word "six," insert "and eight and nine."

Mr. SPEAKER: I beg to inform the House that this Amendment raises the question of Privilege.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 2, leave out "twelve" and insert "sixteen."

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Miss Bondfield.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Interpretation, repeal, application, short title, and commencement.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 30, leave out "are hereby repealed," and insert "shall."?

Division No. 129.]
AYES.
[10.33 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Freeman, Peter
Lawson, John James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Leach, W.


Alpass, J. H.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Ammon, Charles George
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Angell, Norman
Gibbins, Joseph
Lees, J.


Arnott, John
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lowis, T. (Southampton)


Aske, Sir Robert
Gill, T. H.
Lindley, Fred W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gillett, George M.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Ayles, Walter
Glassey, A. E.
Logan, David Gilbert


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gossling, A. G.
Longbottom, A. W.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gould, F.
Longden, F.


Barnes, Alfred John
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Batey, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lowth, Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gray, Milner
Lunn, William


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Benson, G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' w.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McElwee, A.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, Thomas E.
McEntee, V. L.


Birkett, W. Norman
Grundy, Thomas W.
McKinlay, A.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacLaren, Andrew


Bowen, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bromfield, William
Harbison, T. J.
Mansfield, W.


Bromley, J.
Harbord, A.
March, S.


Brooke, W.
Hardie, George D.
Marcus, M.


Brothers, M.
Harris, Percy A.
Markham, S. F.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Marley, J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mathers, George


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Haycock, A. W.
Matters, L. W.


Buchanan, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Maxton, James


Burgess, F. G.
Hayes, John Henry
Melville, Sir James


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Messer, Fred


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Millar, J. D.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mills, J. E.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Herriotts, J.
Milner, J.


Cameron, A. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Montague, Frederick


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Hoffman, P. C.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Church, Major A. G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Clarke, J. S.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Mort, D. L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Compton, Joseph
Isaacs, George
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Daggar, George
Johnston, Thomas
Murnin, Hugh


Dallas, George
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Naylor, T. E.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oldfield, J. R.


Devlin, Joseph
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Dickson, T.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kelly, W. T.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Dukes, C.
Kennedy, Thomas
Palin, John Henry


Duncan, Charles
Kinley, J.
Paling, Wilfrid


Ede, James Chuter
Kirkwood, D.
Palmer, E. T.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Perry, S. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lang, Gordon
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Egan, W. H.
Lathan, G.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Elmley, Viscount
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Pole, Major D. G.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Potts, John S.


Foot, Isaac
Lawrence, Susan
Pybus, Percy John

Mr. SPEAKER: I beg to inform the House that this Amendment, again, raises a question of Privilege.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Lawson.]

The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 124.

Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Viant, S. P.


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Walker, J.


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wallace, H. W.


Richards, R.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Watkins, F. C.


Riley, Bun (Dowsbury)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Welfock, Wilfred


Ritson, J.
Snell, Harry
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Romeril, H. G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
West, F. R.


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Sorensen, R.
Westwood, Joseph


Rowson, Guy
Stamford, Thomas W.
White, H. G.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stephen, Campbell
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sandham, E.
Strauss, G. R.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sawyer, G. F.
Sullivan, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Scurr, John
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sexton, James
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thurtle, Ernest
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tillett, Ben
Wise, E. F.


Sherwood, G. H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Shield, George William
Toole, Joseph
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tout, W. J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Shillaker, J. F.
Townend, A. E.



Short, Alfred (Wedneabury)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Simmons, C. J.
Turner, B.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Sitch, Charles H.
Vaughan, D. J.
Whiteley.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Albery, Irving James
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Allen, w. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.
Salmon, Major I.


Balniel, Lord
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Beaumont, M. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Haslam, Henry C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Skelton, A. N.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Boyce, H. L.
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Carver, Major W. H.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cattle Stewart, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomson, Sir F.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Train, J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lymington, Viscount
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mitchell-Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Everard, W. Lindsay
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Major the Marquess of Titchfield.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Power, Sir John Cecil

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 31, at the end, insert
cease to have effect until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment, again, raises a question of Privilege.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Lawson.]

The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 124.

Division No. 130.]
AYES.
[10.44 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Matters, L. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Melville, Sir James


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Messer, Fred


Alpass, J. H.
Groves, Thomas E.
Millar, J. D.


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mills, J. E.


Angell, Norman
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Milner, J.


Arnott, John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morley, Ralph


Ayles, Walter
Harbison, T. J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harbord, A.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hardie, George D.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Barnes, Alfred John
Harris, Percy A.
Mort, D. L.


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Haycock, A. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, Hugh


Benson, G.
Hayes, John Henry
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Naylor, T. E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Birkett, W. Norman
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Herriotts, J.
Oldfield, J. R.


Bowen, J. W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Bromfield, William
Horrabin, J. F.
Palin, John Henry


Bromley, J.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, Wilfrid


Brooke, W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palmer, E. T.


Brothers, M.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Perry, S. F.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Isaacs, George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Buchanan, G.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Pole, Major D. G.


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Potts, John S.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pybus, Percy John


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cameron, A. G.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Raynes, W. R.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Church, Major A. G.
Kinley, J.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Clarke, J. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F D.(W. Bromwich)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lang, Gordon
Romeril, H. G.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cove, William G.
Lathan, G.
Rowson, Guy


Daggar, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dallas, George
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sandham, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Sawyer, G. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scurr, John


Devlin, Joseph
Leach, W.
Sexton, James


Dickson, T.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dukes, C.
Lees, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Duncan, Charles
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sherwood, G. H.


Ede, James Chuter
Lindley, Fred W.
Shield, George William


Edmunds, J. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Logan, David Gilbert
Shillaker, J. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longbottom, A. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Egan, W. H.
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Foot, Isaac
Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Freeman, Peter
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
McElwee, A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, V. L.
Snell, Harry


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKinlay, A.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sorensen, R.


Gill, T. H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gillett, George M.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stephen, Campbell


Glassey, A. E.
Mansfield, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gossling, A. G.
March, S.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gould, F.
Marcus, M.
Strauss, G. R.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Markham, S. F.
Sullivan, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marley, J.
Sutton, J. E.


Gray, Milner
Mathers, George
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)




Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Thurtle, Ernest
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Tillett, Ben
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Tinker, John Joseph
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Toole, Joseph
Welch, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wise, E. F.


Tout, W. J.
West, F. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Townend, A. E.
Westwood, Joseph
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
White, H. G.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Turner, B.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)



Vaughan, D. J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Viant, S. P.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Walker, J.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Whiteley.


Wallace, H. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Albery, Irving James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandaman (Liverp'l., W.)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Atkinson, C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Russell, Alexander Watt (Tynemouth)


Balniel, Lord
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Salmon, Major I.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beaumont, M. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bevan, s. J. (Holborn)
Haslam, Henry C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Skelton, A. N.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Boyce, H. L.
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Carver, Major W. H.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomson, Sir F.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess at


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalkeith, Earl of
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lymington, Viscount
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, Major-General Sir j. H.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.



Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Everard, W. Lindsay
Penny, Sir George
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Warrender.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 2, leave out from the beginning, to the word "may," and insert "those Acts and this Act."

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is merely due to the fact that the Act overlaps into 1930, instead of being completed in 1929.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 13, at the end, insert a new Sub-section.

"(8) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen
hundred and thirty-one, and no longer, and thereafter the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1929, shall have effect as if this Act had not been passed."

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Major ELLIOT: I hesitated to rise, thinking that the Minister was about to give some reason for moving to disagree with this Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Lady has already made a speech on this sub-
ject, and, had she commenced another, I should have had to rule her out of order. We cannot have a repetition of the same Debate which took place earlier in the evening.

Major ELLIOT: That was why I was hoping that the Minister would give the House a few words of explanation showing in what way this Amendment differs from the Amendments which we have previously had under consideration. I was about to indicate to the House that this Amendment raises the question of the limitation, not of this Clause or of that Clause, but of the Bill. It deals with several points about the Bill on which no discussion of any kind has taken place this evening. It deals more particularly with the whole case of bringing in the juveniles, to which no reference whatever has been made during the evening. In fact, it would have been ruled out of order earlier, but it is of course now fully in order, because this proviso ought to make possible the long anticipated statement of the President of the Board of Education. The Minister, and indeed the Government, in the Bill which they have introduced, have gone to the extraordinary length, not merely of legislation by reference, but of reference to an Act which has not yet been passed, or even drafted, and of which the terms are absolutely unknown to the House; and, what is more, that Act is not to come into operation for a considerable time after the passing of the Measure which is at present before the House. This Amendment, in limiting the whole of the present Measure, and not merely one Clause or another, would enable the question of bringing the juveniles into the Bill to be reviewed. Undoubtedly, however, it is desirable to review the policy of the Bill as a whole on this proviso, because, in addition to the Debates on one or two particular points which have been raised, this proviso offers us an opportunity of reviewing the declared policy of the Government with regard to the Ministry of Labour, and the policy which the Government are pursuing on this particular subject.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now going far beyond this particular Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: I respectfully submit that a general Debate has not been allowed on the Bill as a whole—

Mr. SPEAKER: It would be quite out of order.

Major ELLIOT: Certainly, the Debate on the Bill as a whole would have been out of order, but the question of limiting the Bill is obviously in order, and, in fact, that is the issue which this Amendment specifically raises. The question of the time over which this Bill is to run cannot be discussed apart from the Amendment that we have before us. In discussing its merits, and whether it is or is not desirable to limit such a Bill, it is necessary for us to submit arguments showing in what respects it is desirable for the House at an early date to review the Statute that is being brought into force. It would, of course, be simply waste of time to suggest that the whole Bill should have been rejected, because that would obviously be out of order, and that is not the proposal before the House. But the limitations of the proposal are founded, first of all, on a statement made by the responsible Minister herself; secondly, on the Debates that took place in another place; and, thirdly, on the policy of the Government as indicated in a recent pronouncement which makes it more than desirable for us to hold this policy closely under review.

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. If you, Sir, call an hon. Gentleman to order for irrelevance on three occasions, ought he not then to resume his seat?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to be the judge of that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will see that I get the same treatment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make those accusations against the Chair.

Major ELLIOT: I submit that the question in respect of juveniles has not been broached at all this evening. The question whether the Minister did or did not give a Parliamentary pledge to review the Bill as a whole was broached, it is true, on that previous occasion, and it was decided that it should be left over to the occasion that we have now. On
the third point, the question is how far we can comment on the declared policy of the Ministry, the policy of temporarily increasing unemployment, thereby causing a greater charge to fall upon the fund, and increasing the numbers with which this Statute will have to deal. If and when I am allowed to develop that part of the argument, no doubt you, Sir, will call me to order if I transgress the strictest rules.
On the first point, the question of the juveniles, we have the position in which the Minister herself introduced a Statute in terms which did not satisfy any quarter of the House. An Amendment was moved dealing with the point by Members below and above the Gangway, and the Minister bowed to the collective wisdom of the House. The Minister was far from bowing in that abject manner in which she bowed to the wisdom of the House when it came in a concentrated blast from the benches behind her. [Interruption.] The Minister then brought forward the suggestion, in order to deal with the obvious uneasiness in all parts of the House regarding the proposals which she was making, to bring young persons apparently straight from school into the machinery of unemployment insurance and to ensure that from the first wages which a boy or girl earned the State should reach over his or her shoulder and dump the Unemployment Insurance stamp on to the wages card, and introduce him or her immediately to the theory that only a short time would elapse before he or she began to fall on that unhappy phenomenon of social life, Unemployment Insurance benefit.

Mr. KELLY: On a point of Order. In view of the detailed discussion which we have had on the old Clause 4 and the new Clause 4, is it in order now to discuss each of the other Clauses in detail?

Mr. SPEAKER: The House will perhaps forgive me, because I am in a slight difficulty. I was not present at the time of the previous discussion, and I am extremely anxious to be fair to all sides. As far as I can gather from the hon. and gallant Member, the question with regard to juveniles was not fully discussed, and on that particular point I shall allow the Debate to go on.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: On the point of order. Earlier I attempted to discuss whether this was a dole or not. I was told then that it was out of order, and that I should be in order later, and obviously we ought to be allowed to discuss whether it is a dole or proper insurance benefit.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must take each point as it arises.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure that these interruptions do not shorten the discussion. I shall do my best to deal with the admittedly difficult case of the Bill before us in connection with the Amendments which have come down from another place. The question of the juveniles was discussed at some length in another place, and the discussion on the juveniles was, after all, one of the reasons which led the other House to insert the time limit. If the time limit were struck out or disagreed with, the proposals of the other place with regard to the Bill would need to be reconsidered. The Minister, as I was saying, proposed to bring young persons into the machinery of Unemployment Insurance without any, what is called "gap," but what I would prefer to call "break."
I am certainly not going to debate the merits of the case, because, after all, it was clearly brought out that young persons were not to be brought into insurance, because of the amount of unemployment that they would suffer, but rather on account of the supposed benefits that they might derive from the discipline under which they would be kept. It was rather a suprise to learn that the Minister was counting upon the large amount of money that she would receive in connection with their contributions. She wished to bring in agricultural labourers for the same reason, namely, that she would be able to get a great deal more money from them than she would pay out. She hoped to bring in domestic servants in the same way. She justified her general policy on the ground that it was a splendid thing that people from other industries should pay for the depressed industries. That reinforces to an extraordinary degree the contention which we have heard advanced from the benches opposite that it is the poor who have to help the poor.

Mr. SHEPHERD: And the rich.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is the Tories who keep the poor poor.

Major ELLIOT: I shall do my best not to be led away by interrupters, although they open a very fascinating field of discussion. I shall do my best to adhere rigidly to the subject under discussion and limit the Debate, so that we may get to our beds at a seasonable hour. The Minister of Labour bowed to the wish of the House that we should make certain that payment would be made only when the recipients were attending juvenile unemployment centres. That to some extent soothed the apprehensions of the House, but in subsequent debate it transpired that that intention was qualified by the words "if centres were available." Both Oppositions had sought to put compulsion upon the Minister in regard to the provision of Juvenile Unemployment Centres. Centres might or might not be available, and it left entirely at the discretion of the Minister whether payment should be made or not. Under a time limit it would be possible, when the Act came up for review, to see whether the Minister had pursued the policy of Juvenile Unemployment Centres or whether through carelessness or preoccupation with other things, she had not done so. She might be excused for preoccupation with other things, seeing the rate at which unemployment figures are rising. It might be that she had been pre-occupied with other things and had not been able to supervise the pressing forward of the Juvenile Unemployment Centre programme. It was only on the understanding of a Juvenile Unemployment Centre programme that the House parted with this portion of the Bill. If the proposed policy is to be proceeded with, then not merely a minority but a majority of the House will be in disagreement with the Minister.
A point which was broached but not discussed at any length was whether she had in mind a temporary duration, not merely for the transition period, but for the whole Bill, when she introduced the Bill. If that was so, it is germane to our discussion, and it is reasonable that the House should support us in moving what the Minister apparently had in her mind. To those who were present when she dealt with this part of the Bill
on the Second Reading it was clear that she approached the Debate in a spirit of trepidation and apprehension as to the reception which not merely the temporary but the permanent portion of the Measure would get from her supporters, notably hon. Members below the Gangway—trepidation and apprehension, which events proved to be well justified. She desired to disarm this opposition in advance, and gave evidence of a desire to amend the Bill and make its operation temporary. I contend that it was from that angle, not from the angle of making a slip, that she made her well-known pronouncement, that the Sub-section would be open to criticism and that there would be an opportunity of amending it at the end of the year. Nobody who knows the right hon. Lady's powers of expression and her character would suggest that she was making a slip which she has omitted to remedy. She was acting under the fear of having to modify her proposals, of having to meet opposition from more than one quarter of the House, and particularly from a quarter to which she is entitled to look for support. It was from that angle that she made the pronouncement that the Sub-section could be considered at the end of the year, and that only experience could show whether the Sub-section would help us to avoid the twin evils of injustice to the claimant and imposition on the Unemployment Fund. The proposal which has been made in another place, and which we are now discussing, enables us to review the position in the light of the experience for which the Minister asked when she introduced the Bill on Second Beading, and when she made the pronouncement that experience alone would enable us to determine the working of this Clause or any Clause dealing with benefit, and that experience could only be obtained by a review at a later date of the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
This is all the more necessary because the pronouncement of the Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy was that an increase in the unemployment figures was to be expected in the immediate future. This was not merely a fear or expectation, it was almost a hope that they would rise, because it would be a proof of the success of their policy of
rationalisation. This argument was seriously voiced by the right hon. Lady in our Debates. She said:
The figures will be in excess of the figures of last year, for the reason that under the late Government things were allowed to drift.
She goes on to explain that there will be reorganisation, and says:
Before re-organisation can take full effect there will be much displacement in the number of persons unemployed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) interjected the remark that the Lord Privy Seal only a short time before had said that the figures would be much better for February, which is almost here now and the right hon. Lady made the rather caustic remark:
I am not speaking for the purpose of making a debating point.
That was rather hard on the Lord Privy Seal. We have the statement put up on behalf of the Ministry, challenged by hon. Members below the Gangway; by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and another hon. Member who sometimes acts with him—

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the hon. and gallant Member is entitled in trying to establish his point now to give us a long survey of the Debates which have taken place in this House in the past and to read extracts from them.

Mr. SPEAKER: I find it rather difficult to connect the hon. and gallant Member's speech with the Amendment now before the House.

Major ELLIOT: I will do my utmost to connect it: my argument was devoted to that end. When dealing with this Measure at the beginning of the series of Debates we were not informed of the anticipation that the Ministry would press forward actively the process of rationalisation with the view to increasing even temporarily the number of unemployed.

Mr. SPEAKER: I gave a ruling on the question of the time limit that there should be no repetition of arguments used before. I indicated my desire that a long rambling debate on the merits of the Bill should not be allowed.

Captain EDEN: On a point of Order. In the earlier stages it was ruled quite clearly by your predecessor in the Chair that our discussions on that occasion were confined solely to consideration of whether the statutory provision governing benefit should be reconsidered within a year or not. That was the only subject we were allowed to discuss.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Further on that point of Order. I wanted to discuss the matter of the dole and was not allowed to do so. I did not in the least wish to transgress the rules, but I did hope I should have a chance of raising it now.

Mr. SPEAKER: Discussion of what the hon. Member is pleased to call the dole would be quite out of order on this Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: I shall do my utmost to avoid what you stigmatise as a long rambling discussion on the merits of the Bill. I shall do so more particularly in view of the presence of the Secretary for War, who, if any rambling discussion were embarked upon, would be certain to ramble further. The Amendment suggests that Parliament should not finally part with this Measure at this time, but should retain it for reconsideration and review. I do say that the proposals that have been brought forward in more than one aspect require the continued consideration of Parliament. Our desire to limit the time is a desire to keep under review the administrative developments which the Minister herself has foreshadowed. It is for these, amongst other reasons, that I and my Friends on this side wish that the House should not here and now part with the Bill.

Captain EDEN: Like many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, I feel that this is the most important Amendment which we have to discuss to-night. We were confined strictly in the earlier stages of the Debate, and my only desire now is to draw the attention of the House to one or two matters in connection with this Amendment. I do not think that anybody can deny that considerable confusion exists as to the effects of the working of the Measure. I do not think that the right hon. Lady herself would deny the temporary nature of the Measure and, apart from its general provisions, the question of juvenile unemployment arises in this connection. We
shall, first of all, if we have the opportunity a year hence, desire to review the effects of the inclusion of juveniles at lower ages, and surely we are entitled—

Miss BONDFIELD: It will only be operative a year hence.

Captain EDEN: That is exactly the point which I wish to make. This provision is contingent upon another proviso, and the right hon. Lady and the Government have given us an assurance that that proviso will be fulfilled, but Government assurances are not always so easily and quickly redeemed. Should that promise not be redeemed, we wish to have an opportunity, within a certain limit of time, of calling the attention of the right hon. Lady to its non-fulfilment. It seems to me that that consideration greatly strengthens our case for being allowed to have this power, and I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for enabling me to make that point. Then there is the question of the instruction of the children. Very strong emphasis is laid upon the question of the training of children in the report with which the right hon. Lady is so familiar—the report of the Blanesburgh Committee. One sentence of that report states that in the judgment of the committee further provision for training was essential. Everyone on this side is

Division No. 131.]
AYES.
[11.29 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)
Buchanan, G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Burgess, F. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Gibbins, Joseph


Alpass, J. H.
Cameron, A. G.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Ammon, Charles George
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gill, T. H.


Angell, Norman
Charleton, H. C.
Gillett, George M.


Arnott, John
Chater, Daniel
Glassey, A. E.


Aske, Sir Robert
Church, Major A. G.
Gossling, A. G.


Ayles, Walter
Clarke, J. S.
Gould, F.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Cluse, W. S.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Barnes, Alfred John
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Batey, Joseph
Compton, Joseph
Gray, Milner


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Dagger, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Dallas, George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Dalton, Hugh
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Benson, G.
Cavies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Groves, Thomas E.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Birkett, W. Norman
Devlin, Joseph
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Bowen, J. W.
Dukes, C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Duncan, Charles
Harbison, T. J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Ede, James Chuter
Harbord, A.


Bromfield, William
Edmunds, J. E.
Hardie, George D.


Bromley, J.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Harris, Percy A.


Brooke, W.
Egan, W. H.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Brothers, M.
Elmley, Viscount
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Haycock, A. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Foot, Isaac
Hayday, Arthur


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Freeman, Peter
Hayes, John Henry

agreed that we should have an opportunity to review the position as regards the further training a year from now. Surely the right hon. Lady is not going to say that she does not hope to make any progress in the matter of training facilities between now and next year; and on this ground alone the House is entitled to this extremely reasonable provision. There has hardly ever been a Bill in which, in the course of its passage through Parliament, quite apart from the Statutory provision which we have ceased to consider, there have been so many modifications, so many changes of mind, so many points of view, so many different reflections passing through the minds of Ministers. The position is one about which there cannot, but be great uncertainty. There must inevitably be uncertainty as to the future of the Bill. I therefore think it reasonable to ask that this very modest provision inserted in another place should be maintained, so that the House may keep open what ought to be its undoubted right.

Several HON. MEMBERS rose—

Miss BONDFIELD rote in her place, and claimed to more, "Tint the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 104.

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardin, S.)
Markham, S. F.
Sherwood, G. H.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marley, J.
Shield, George William


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Herriotts, J.
Matters, L. W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Maxton, James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Melville, Sir James
Simmons, C. J.


Hoffman, P. C.
Messer, Fred
Sitch, Charles H.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Millar, J. D.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Horrabin, J. F.
Mills, J. E.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Isaacs, George
Morley, Ralph
Snell, Harry


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Jones, F. Llewellyn, (Flint)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sorensen, R.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mort, D. L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Stephen, Campbell


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Strauss, G. R.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Murnin, Hugh
Sutton, J. E.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk. S. W.)


Kelly, W. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Kennedy, Thomas
Noel Baker, P. J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Kinky, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
Tillett, Ben


Lang, Gordon
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Tinker, John Joseph


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Toole, Joseph


Lathan, G.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Tout, W. J.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Palin, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Paling, Wilfrid
Turner, B.


Lawrence, Susan
Perry, S. F.
Vaughan, D. J.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Lawson, John James
Phillips, Dr. Mar[...]on
Wallace, H. W.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Watkins, F. C.


Leach, W.
Potts, John S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Pybus, Percy John
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lees, J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
West, F. R.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Westwood, Joseph


Lindley, Fred W.
Raynes, W. R.
White, H. G.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Richards, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Logan, David Gilbert
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Longbottom, A. W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Longden, F.
Ritson, J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Williams, Dr. J H. (Llanelly)


Lunn, William
Romeril, H. G.
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rothschild, J. de
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Macdonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rowson, Guy
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


McElwee, A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


McEntee, V. L.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wise, E. F.


McKinlay, A.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


MacLaren, Andrew
Sandham, E.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sawyer, G. F.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sexton, James



Mansfield, W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Marcus, M.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Albery, Irving James
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Atholl, Duchess of
Dalkeith, Earl of
Haslam, Henry C.


Atkinson, C.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Beaumont, M. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Iveagh, Countess of


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Eden, Captain Anthony
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Long, Major Eric


Boyce, H. L.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lymington, Viscount


Bracken, B.
Ferguson, Sir John
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Brown, Brig,-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Carver, Major W. H.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Christie, J. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Colville, Major D. J.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive




Muirhead, A. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Warrender, Sir Victor


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Skelton, A. N.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wells, Sydney R.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hamsbotham, H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Richardson, Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, Sir F.
Womersley, W. J.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Todd, Capt. A. J.



Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Train, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Division No. 132.]
AYES.
[11.38 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lees, J.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gill, T. H.
Lindley, Fred W.


Alpass, J. H.
Gillett, George M.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Ammon, Charles George
Glassey, A. E.
Logan, David Gilbert


Angell, Norman
Gossling, A. G.
Longbottom, A. W.


Arnott, John
Gould, F.
Longden, F.


Aske, Sir Robert
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Ayles, Walter
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lunn, William


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gray, Milner
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Barnes, Alfred John
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)
McElwee, A.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Groves, Thomas E.
McEntee, V. L.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
McKinlay, A.


Benson, G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacLaren, Andrew


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mansfield, W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Harbison, T. J.
Marcus, M.


Bowen, J. W.
Harbord, A.
Markham, S. F.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hardie, George D.
Marley, J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Harris, Percy A.
Mathers, George


Bromfield, William
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Matters, L. W.


Bromley, J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maxton, James


Brooke, W.
Haycock, A. W.
Melville, Sir James


Brothers, M.
Hayday, Arthur
Messer, Fred


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hayes, John Henry
Millar, J. D.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Milner, J.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Montague, Frederick


Burgess, F. G.
Herriotts, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morley, Ralph


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cameron, A. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mort, D L.


Charleton, H. C.
Horrabin, J. F.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Chater, Daniel
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Church, Major A. G.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Muggeridge, H. T.


Clarke, J. S.
Hutchison, Maj. Gen. Sir R.
Murnin, Hugh


Cluse, W. S.
Isaacs, George
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Naylor, T. E.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Dallas, George
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Oldfield, J. R.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent. Ashford)
Palin, John Henry


Devlin, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Paling, Wilfrid


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Kennedy, Thomas
Perry, S. F.


Dukes, C.
Kinley, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Duncan, Charles
Lang, Gordon
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Ede, James Chuter
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Edmunds, J. E.
Lathan, G.
Potts, John S.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Pybus, Percy John


Egan, W. H.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Elmley, Viscount
Lawrence, Susan
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Foot, Isaac
Lawson, John James
Raynes, W. R.


Freeman, Peter
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Richards, R.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Leach, W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 105.

Ritson, J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wellock, Wilfred


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Romeril, H. G.
Snell, Harry
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
West, F. R.


Rowson, Guy
Sorensen, R.
Westwood, Joseph


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stamford, Thomas W.
White, H. G.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Stephen, Campbell
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Sandham, E.
Strauss, G. R.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Sawyer, G. F.
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sexton, James
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sherwood, G. H.
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Shield, George William
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Toole, Joseph
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Shillaker, J. F.
Tout, W. J.
Wise, E. F.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Townend, A. E
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Simmons, C. J.
Turner, B.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Sitch, Charles H.
Vaughan, D. J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Viant, S. P.



Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wallace, H. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Watkins, F. C.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major A. J
Muirhead, A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ferguson, Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Atholl, Duchess of
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Ramsbotham, H.


Atkinson, C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Frauds E.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Balniel, Lord
Ganzoni, Sir John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Beaumont, M. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bevan, s. J. (Holborn)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Salmon, Major I.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Skelton, A. N.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Boyce, H. L.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smithers, Waldron


Bracken, B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Iveagh, Countess of
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Long, Major Eric
Wells, Sydney R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lymington, Viscount
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dairymple-White. Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.



Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir




George Penny.

SECOND SCHBDULE.—(Minor Amendments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, leave out lines 26 to 29, and insert "repealed."

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There is a discrepancy between the Old Age Pensions Act in regard to contributions and the Unemployment Insurance
Act, and by this Amendment it is hoped that the provision will be made perfectly clear.

Mr. E. BROWN: May I point out that the Old Age Pensions Act of 1925 repealed Section 5 of the 1920 Act, because we found that those contributions were payable on behalf of old age pensioners over 70 who continued to be employed. That was the reason why the 1925 Act repealed that Section. On reflection, the Minister granted regulations under which it was pointed out to employers that in
future they would have to pay for all employés over 55 years of age, but the Huddersfield Corporation's solicitor did not see eye to eye with the regulation, and on legal grounds contested the facts as stated in the regulation of the Ministry of Labour, with the result that there was a long and wordy controversy between the solicitor and the Ministry. It was a very interesting correspondence, and, if hon. Members will get into touch with the Huddersfield Corporation, they will find it is a very interesting story. It throws a flood of light on the kind of things done behind the back of the House of Commons by Departments. This controversy went on for some months, and then, feeling doubt about it, the Ministry of Labour let it drop actually for thirteen months, and nothing more was said. Suddenly, the Huddersfield Corporation received a letter from the Ministry of Labour demanding payment of arrears, backed by the assertion that the Attorney-General held that the solicitor's law was wrong. There was a change of Government within a month, and, although for (more than eighteen months the Ministry of Labour had been contending that the law of the Huddersfield Corporation's solicitor was wrong, they slipped into their original Bill words to give effect to the error which he had been pointing out. Now, in 1929, the Ministry of Labour wrote to the Huddersfield Corporation in these terms:
In the Unemployment Insurance Bill which is at present before Parliament, amongst other suggested amending enactments, is the following:
' Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925: Section 5, Sub-section 5, shall, so far as it relates to persons of the age of 65 years or upwards, to be deemed to have ceased, as from the 2nd day of January, 1928, to take effect.' 
The letter of the Ministry of Labour went on:
In the circumstances, I am instructed to take no further action until the Bill has become law.
I think the House will agree that it was worth calling attention to these facts, and I want to make my protest against that kind of thing being done by a Department. It is not right that it should be done by regulations made behind the back of Parliament when there are actual flaws or doubts. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that there was
never any legal decision upon it. There was only the ipse dixit of the Attorney-General as against the legal opinion of the solicitor of the Huddersfield Corporation and of counsel instructed by him, who also disagreed with the Attorney-General. Yet, when the thing is put right in the Bill, the Ministry of Labour come along with a letter which contains a threat to the Corporation—which had only exercised what I presume to be their legal rights—that when this Bill became law these further steps would be taken. I think on this occasion we might have had a more adequate explanation.

Sir K. WOOD: Anyone who has listened to the hon. Member who has just spoken will agree that it is right that this matter should not be passed over without 6ome comment from this House. The Huddersfield Corporation have on several occasions communicated with Members of this House concerning this very extraordinary case. This matter began as long ago as 1927, and I think it is some credit to the Huddersfield Corporation that they have been able to maintain their position for that considerable period. It is perfectly true that some of these events happened during the time of the last Government, but the sequel is very extraordinary, especially coming from the party opposite, who have been so free in their criticisms of what their predecessors have done. In 1927 the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health issued a leaflet for the information of the employers, giving particulars of employers' contributions payable on or after the 2nd January, 1928, for employed persons of 65 years and upwards, and in paragraph? of that leaflet were stated the contributions payable by the employer, notwithstanding that the employed person might be over 70, or in the enjoyment of an old age pension. The Huddersfield Corporation had several people who were over 7(and in receipt of old age pensions, and, as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has said, they took a very strong line. They were keeping on these employés for a few hours each week in order to give them a little extra money, in view of the long period for which they had served the Corporation, and I think that that may be generally regarded from the point of view of the Huddersfield Corporation, as an act of charity.
The Town Clerk of the Huddersfield Corporation advised that the statement in the leaflet issued by the two Departments, so far as it related to the liability of an employer to pay contributions under the particular Section, had not been repealed, and he communicated his contention to the Minister of Labour; and he received a reply that the Minister of Labour was advised that that particular Section must be regarded as repealed by the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act so far as people over 65 were concerned. It is fair to say that the Town Clerk of Huddersfield immediately communicated with the Minister of Labour of that time, disagreeing with this contention, and he received a reply from the Department of my right hon. Friend who was Minister at that time. They agreed that the point raised by the solicitor to the Huddersfield Corporation was one of considerable difficulty, and the Secretary to the Ministry, in the course of his communication, went on to say that, unless and until the matter was otherwise determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Minister of Labour was bound to act upon the advice that he had received. It is curious, as the hon. Member for Leith has said, that the Huddersfield Corporation heard nothing further in the matter until February, 1929; in other words, a full year had passed without the Minister of Labour attempting to move in the matter. On the 22nd February, for the reasons I have already stated, the solicitor to the Ministry of Labour wrote to the Town Clerk of Huddersfield stating that the Minister of Labour felt obliged to enforce payment by the Corporation of contributions in respect of these old people.
12 m.
In other words, it was insisted that contributions should be paid in respect of the old people whom they employed purely as an act of charity. The solicitor went on to say he had been instructed to take proceedings by way of Attorney-General's information. The Council took counsel's opinion and were definitely advised that Section 5 (5) of the Unemployment Insurance Act
was not repealed and the view of the Corporation was the correct one. There was further correspondence and on December 17th, 1929, the Town Clerk received the letter which has been quoted from the solicitor stating that in the circumstances he was instructed to take no further proceedings until the Bill had become law. The clear inference was that the Ministry contemplated proceedings as soon as the Bill become law. It was a retrospective proposal to impose a penalty for failing to stamp as from January 2nd, 1928—for unpaid contributions. The Corporation took strong exception to this course. It is no wonder that this Amendment occupied a day and a half in the other place. Lord Sumner and others took the strongest exception to the course that had been taken. This House will agree that we are not unduly prolonging proceedings in calling attention to this in order to point the moral that we do not desire to see this state of affairs repeated. I hope that other hon. Members will associate themselves with this protest. No doubt the learned Attorney-General may desire to say something in confirmation of what I have said. I hope that I have said nothing with which he disagrees. [Interruption.] I have no desire to join issue with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will wait until they have finished. I am content to wait until I get silence. Once again, in this particular case, the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leith, has done a service to the House of Commons by calling attention to this important matter. It may well be that he will be rebuked by the Prime Minister, who expects him to do what he tells him to do. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leith, is showing some courage, and I feel that certainly in this connection he has the support of every hon. Gentleman sitting near him.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), congratulated the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) on having shown some courage, but this was only to be expected of the hon. Member for Leith, for he was born in my Division. Anyone who really is careful as to the legislation of this country
must realise that a great service has been rendered by the hon. Member in bringing this matter forward to-night. I have no intention other than to ask one comparatively small question on this matter. A most extraordinary position has arisen between Huddersfield and the Ministry of Labour and it has continued to exist for a considerable number of years. That position relates to a series of very complicated questions, and I gather that, as far as this Amendment is concerned, the matter is likely to be put right. An injustice has been done to the individual and to the Corporation, and every time this thing happens there is the liability of a fine of £10, which sum accrues to the Ministry of Labour. The point I wish to raise is a comparatively simple one. [Interruption.] I hope that it is sufficiently simple for hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand. I think that we are entitled to have an answer. It has been admitted that this mistake has been allowed to continue, and it has been admitted in another place that this Amendment will probably remedy it. Will the Minister or the Attorney-General explain how this mistake arose, and may we have the right hon. Lady's definite assurance that the matter will once for all be put right?

Sir JOHN POWER: This is retrospective legislation in its worst form. It does not happen to be unconstitutional in this country, but it is unconstitutional in America. It has been condemned by Lord Cook. [HON. MEMBERS: "Arthur Cook."] There is no doubt whatever that this is a class of legislation absolutely repulsive to the British people. It turns into breakers of the law people who are entirely innocent. I should like to have an explanation from the Minister of Labour of how it was dared to put such a Clause in a Bill and bring it before the House and, what is more, to get it through. We are indebted greatly to another place. If anyone questions the usefulness of the other place, here is an instance of its usefulness. I cannot understand how anyone can agree to such a mean and repugnant Clause. Is it merely to snatch a few odd ten pounds that they are going to do such a thing, or is it merely a question of vengeance on the part of the Ministry of Labour?
The question ought not to be allowed to drop without a reply being given either from the Attorney-General or the Minister of Labour. We ought not to part with the Bill until we have received an explanation of this piece of vindictive legislation.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: The Minister of Labour may be too tired to reply, but we might have a reply from the Attorney-General or the Parliamentary Secretary. It is discourteous to the House not to give a reply.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 3, at the end, insert
Section 1: In the proviso to Sub-section (1) after the word 'having' there shall be inserted the words 'or assisting in.'

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon an alteration to a previous Clause.

Major ELLIOT: This is rather a revelation. Apparently a Clause of this Bill has been smuggled through without our attention having been called to it, and this Amendment might conceal some deep laid plot. The right hon. Lady has asked us to agree with this Amendment. She has been rather "sniffy" with regard to some of the things which the Lords have done. [Interruption.] That is quite a parliamentary expression and is the language which has been used to describe that attitude by all authors since the days of Jane Austen. Upon what is it consequential?

Miss BONDFIELD: The words "assisting in" occur in a Clause in the Bill, and their insertion here is consequential.

Mr. E. BROWN: Surely this has to do with Section 14 of the Act of 1922?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is consequential on an alteration in the Bill.

Mr. BROWN: But it relate to a section of the Act of 1922.

Major ELLIOT: We are told that this is an Amendment to a Clause. To what Clause? What does it mean? We should be quite willing to listen to the explanation of the Minister.

Mr. MILLS: Have you no faith in the Lords?

Major ELLIOT: We are entitled to find out what we are asked to pass. I have a suspicion that the Government themselves do not know what this means. This is an Amendment to a Clause in a Bill, and there is a dispute between the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) as to what Bill it is.

Mr. BROWN: The section is Section 14 of the Act of 1922, and it reads as follows:—
In Sub-section (1) after the words 'a person not in receipt of benefit' there shall be inserted the words 'or in receipt of less than the full amount of benefit to which he was entitled,' after the words 'had been in receipt of benefit' there shall be inserted the words 'or in receipt of the full amount of benefit to which he was entitled,' and after the words 'by that person for benefit,' there shall be inserted the words 'or for the full amount of benefit.'

Major ELLIOT: The position obviously is very much clearer. With the help of the hon. Member for Leith the House is now able to grasp the point before it. I understand that the insertion of these words will have the effect of broadening the categories of persons who are to be brought in and that if we omit these words we may limit the number of persons who may receive benefit. That is the position, I gather from the very rapid but succinct summary of the Act given by the hon. Member for Leith. That is quite clear. The House is now perfectly seized with the problem with which we are dealing. But what we are not completely clear about is where these words go in and where they come from. It is not to be supposed that the right hon. Lady is less familiar with the provisions or less equipped with the relevant sections than the hon. Member for Leith, because she has the resources of a vast Department and the hon. Member for Leith fights these battles single-handed. He gains his remarkable knowledge only from single-handed research in the Library of this House and other places.
It is a source of admiration to me and to other Members of this House.
We still have to point out to the Minister what is the effect of this Amendment. It is consequential on some Amendment or other made at an earlier date. We should like it to be made clear by the Government whether we have been able to grasp all the possibilities. What is the effect of moving these words from one part of the Sub-section to another?

Mr. SKELTON: Turning to page 17, to which we were referred, it is perfectly clear that the amendment now proposed has no connection with the subsection there quoted. It must refer to something entirely different. We are asked to insert the Amendment after the word "having". That word does not appear at all. So far as I can sec it, this is an Amendment to another part of the Section of the 1922 Act which is not referred to in the Bill at all, the nature of which we do not know, and the effect of which in the original form we do not know. Of the effect of the added words we have not the slightest idea at all. The right, hon Lady says that this is only a consequential Amendment to a Section or Clause, but it is clearly dealing with a topic of which the Section gives no indication at all. This is not treating the House with frankness or courtesy.

Sir K. WOOD: Are we going to have some reply'? I think it would save time.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If we are not going to have a reply —

Sir K. WOOD: I thought the right hon. Lady was going to reply. May I say to her that a reply would save a little time, because otherwise she would have to take the risk of this Amendment herself. This attitude on the part of hon. Members opposite may involve a Division, whereas a few minutes' explanation would probably satisfy us.

Miss BONDFIELD: My hesitation was due to the fact that I have not the right to speak again except with the consent of the House. I am sorry that there should have arisen any doubt as to the question of courtesy. If hon. Members turn to Clause 2, Sub-section (2) of the Bill they will find there that we have
made provision for the non-resident housekeeper who is taking care, or assisting to take care, of the children of a person who pays her the equivalent of 9s. per week for doing so. In the proviso dealing with that matter we have to make this consequential Amendment—inserting the words "or assisting in "—and that is all that the Amendment does. I hope I have made it clear.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We have, on the Paper of Lords' Amendments, an Amendment which proposes to insert certain words "in page 17, line 3, at end." When we refer to the latest copies of the Bill which we possess, we find that there is nothing whatever about the word "having," referred to in the Amendment, and that the words proposed here do not seem to make sense at all when inserted at that point. Then the Minister refers us to Clause 2, Sub-section (2) of the Bill, but it is difficult to see how an Amendment, which is almost the last one on the Paper, can be referred back to Clause 2.

Sir BASIL PETO: Now that we have reached the Amendments dealing with the Schedule to the Bill we are suddenly told that we must jump back to one of the main Clauses of the Bill. I understood that we had dealt with the body of the Bill during the afternoon and I wish to know if it is in order that on an Amendment dealing with the Schedule we should be told to go back to Clause 2.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: In line 3 of page 17 the word "having" does not occur and I do not understand how this Amendment can be made to read into this part of the Schedule. There must be some mistake or printer's error and we should have some explanation of it.

Miss BONDFIELD: I must ask leave to speak again. It never occurred to me that hon. Members were making the mistake which obviously they are making. If they turn again to page 17, they will see the words "Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922." That is line 3. The words of the Amendment on the Paper read straight on from that.

An HON. MEMBER: Why did not you tell us that sooner?

Mr. SKELTON rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The bon. Member cannot speak a second time without leave of the House.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Hon. Members opposite laughed at us when we asked for an explanation, but, if the right hon. Lady had been a little more accurate, she could have seen that the last word in line 3 was "—cont." She has added her words in the wrong place.

Question put, and agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Re-pealed.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 21, leave out "30" and insert "15."

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a purely technical Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: This Amendment is definitely simpler than the last. I understand from the right hon. Lady that the "30" appears by inadvertence and that it should be "15." I take it that the right hon. Lady is not saying anything other than what she has explained to us. I had a slight difference of opinion with the right hon. Lady earlier in the evening, because we had not been explicit enough in demanding a full explanation which she considered she had given earlier in the debate. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady left the subject by indicating that she had made a slip and therefore I am not sure that we shall not be charged with having made a slip if this turns out to be another. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady does, however, assure me that this is purely a drafting Amendment and that there is no question of a slip being raised against us. If it turns out that the right hon. Lady has repealed half the legislation in Christendom or has instituted something like a revolution we shall be entitled to escape responsibility for her error. We accept this Amendment purely on the strength of our belief in her childlike innocence and her sweet and simple candour. In this, the concluding stages of what has been a very long discussion, reaching from the November debates till the pre-
sent moment, I am sure that no better testimony will be desired by the Minister than that at this point we should not desire to question the statement she has made. We are perfectly content to take her at her word and to believe that she is not in any way attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. In a few minutes we shall have parted with the final stages of this Measure, and I am sure the whole House would wish me to congratulate the right hon. Lady upon the patience, upon the energy, and from time to time upon the brutal vigour with which she has conducted the debates. From time to time she has shown a more than masculine vigour in her demands for the Closure to stop further discussion, but we can forgive that, because the right hon. Lady has had so much verbiage to listen to from her comrades upstairs. We can therefore forgive her if she shows a certain amount of impatience when she can do so safely, that is to say, when she is dealing with the Opposition instead of with her own supporters who spend most of their time abusing her either in public or in private. We are glad to accept her assurance, and we shall not vote against, the motion.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am not sure that I can follow my hon. and gallant Friend in the extraordinarily polite statement which he has just been making. I can assure him that, if he had really gone into the matter with care and found that it was necessary to substitute "15" for "30," he would have done something to strengthen my opinion as to whether we can accept the right hon. Lady's opinion whether it ought to be "15" or "30." It is a very serious matter; an extraordinarily serious one. Here are we, innocent Members of the House of Commons, who are only desirous of shortening procedure at this time in the morning. The right hon. Lady and the Parliamentary Secretary who have such a wonderful amount of virtue—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have allowed a great deal of latitude in this debate, but I do not see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was only going to say how extraordinarily difficult it is for this House when called upon suddenly to
deal with these most complicated questions, to do so satisfactorily. All I can say is that as far as I am personally concerned, I shall have on this occasion, as on some others, to accept the decisions to which the right hon. Lady has come.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Ordered, that a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Miss Bond-field, Mr. Ernest Brown, Major Elliot, Mr. Hayday, and Mr. Lawson.

Three to be the quorum.—[Miss Bondfield.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments, reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Miss Bondfield.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Captain CROOKSHANK rose—

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. Did I not understand that you were in the act of collecting the voices?

Mr. SPEAKER: I was in the act of collecting them, but I had not collected them.

Captain CROOKSHANK: We wish to reserve what we have to say to the Lord Privy Seal for Monday, but I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why it has not been found possible to adopt the suggestion which I put to him on the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill. It was that some sort of short memorandum or schedule should be attached to the Bill to show the subjects dealt with. It was a considerable surprise to us that, when we added up the total of the Supplementary Estimates we
had been taking within the last week or so, we found that there was a little sum extra. That was the Lord Privy Seal's salary. It seems like trying to slip the Lord Privy Seal's salary through without members being fully seized that they were possibly losing an opportunity of debating the old subject of unemployment. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that it was a point of substance when I put it to him. He said that if he found the change desirable he would do it. I can only think that he found it desirable, because in these little things we may not be quite awake. The Lord Privy Seal is obviously no party to not showing the subjects for he has sat up in case the question of his salary was raised. I think it desirable that something of the kind I have suggested should be done in the future.
May I also say that in future we must emphatically protest against the way that the Government are managing their business. That the consideration of a Consolidated Fund Bill for over £5,000,000 should be entered upon after 11.30 is nothing short of a scandal. The Bill involves enormous expenditure.
There are important matters raised with regard to unemployment insurance administration, and the Sugar-Beet Subsidy about which some of us have a good deal to say, particularly hon. Members who are lucky enough to have factories in their constituencies, like myself. There is also the Lord Privy Seal's salary. Seeing that the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill was brought in after midnight, and that the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) is brought in after 12.30, I think the Government should make an endeavour to manage their business in a more efficient way.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I am glad to answer the point which the hon. and gallant Member has made. I promised on the occasion when the last Consolidated Fund Bill was before the House to give consideration to the question of giving a list of all the Votes which were covered by the Bill. I carried that out very carefully. I very sympathetically considered the possibility of taking the course which was suggested to me. I find on going into it, that the practice adopted in this Bill has been
the practice for a very considerable time. I find that there is not generally any difficulty in finding what are the subjects which are covered by the Votes in the Bill. I find that the hon. and gallant Member himself has not found any difficulty in discovering the three Votes covered by this Bill. There is no secret about it. But I discovered at the same time that there was a certain objection to including a schedule of all the Votes covered in the Measure. Although on an occasion of this kind it means only two or three, in particular Bills a large number of Votes may be dealt with. These Bills have to be prepared very quickly, and it was expressed to me that it would be a very great inconvenience to the officers of this House to carry it out. If Members had been seriously inconvenienced, I would have set that above the convenience of officers of the House. I feel that no such difficulty really arises. I am sure hon. Members will extend courtesy and consideration to those who do a great deal of the effective work of this House. After sympathetic consideration, I am unable to carry out what the hon. and gallant Member quite properly suggested on the previous occasion. I hope that explanation will satisfy the House and that this particular stage of the Bill will not detain us further. The Committee stage has already been promised for next Monday, and there will be full opportunity for going into all the points which the hon. and gallant Member raises.

Sir K. WOOD: I do think the Financial Secretary ought to consider this matter again. It is through his courtesy that I was able to confirm exactly what was covered by this particular Bill. I do not see why he should not, as is the practice in connection with other Bills, have a short memorandum in front of the Bill setting out what matters are covered. The hon. Gentleman will see that it is very inconvenient for Members who desire to take part in the discussion of some of the matters covered in the Bill. When you have a Bill of considerable length it is inconvenient to Members, and very difficult sometimes, to ascertain exactly what is covered by the Bill. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should consider the matter again. I know that full notice as to what is contained in a particular Bill would be welcomed by
everyone, and would meet the convenience of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES [MONEY].

Order for Committee thereupon discharged.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine minutes before One o'Clock.